Yanattheloom - Untitled

discrimination is when sex toys apparently

This is a false equivalency.

The term for somebody who is transfem and who is oppressed for being transfem—is transfem. Intersex people are intersex. Transfem people are transfem. Perisex people are not intersex. Non-transfem people are not transfem.

TMA/TME is more closely equivalent to if I said IA/IE (intersexism applicable/intersexism exempt).

The reason TMA/TME is problematic is because it fails to acknowledge that non-transfem people can be impacted my transmisogyny—the same way perisex transfems can be impacted by intersexism. And also because it completely ignores the existence of the oppression transmascs experience, categorising them in with their oppressors. The TMA/TME binary is problematic because it collapses complex interplays of oppression into one binary system.

If you want a word for somebody who is transfem and impacted by transfem oppression in the way somebody who is transfem would be? The term is transfem.

“Transfems really are the only people who can’t have terms for their own oppression” I have a question. How do you feel about the term “transandrophobia?” How would you feel about the terms “TAA” and “TAE” (transandrophobia applicable and transandrophobia exempt)? If you’re okay with those terms, I’ll eat my words (somehwhat, it’s still weird, but at least you’re okay with it across the board). If you’re not—why? Do you think trans men don’t experience specific oppression? Is your issue just with who coined it? How do you feel about the term transemasculinisation? Anti-transmasculinity? Please consider why you think it’s okay to restrict the language transmascs use to describe their oppression.

Further, why not make it TMNA/TMNE (transmisogynoir applicable and transmisogynoir exempt)? Black trans women absolutely face the highest rates of assault (assuming black trans men aren’t being erased in the statistics, which is a big assumption). If you’re talking about systems of oppression… why not consider the most impactful axes? Why only consider the axis of man/woman? Consider what this says about the proximity of your theory to radical feminism.

ID credit: 5038382384 on 小红书

(please like, reblog and give proper credit if you use any of my gifs!)

Once got called a ‘another white TME’ by a transandrophobe, which is funny considering the fact that my profile picture is literally the Iraq flag. I’d argue that flag specifically is hard as hell to mistake for a queer flag, so I have no idea what they were thinking when they called me that

DFSKJGH

MATE DOESN'T IT HAVE ALLAHU'AKBAR ON IT???

if you still fucking talk about "transfems are more visible than transmascs and that's unfair and means transmascs have it worse" just think for one second about what kind of visibility transfems are getting and shut the fuck up maybe

I know I will never feel the same after meeting you

(Instagram)

Hmm

I just saw a critique of “oh so transmascs can use a word which is clumsy in its etymology to talk on their oppression and we can’t criticize that, but TME/TMA is able to be criticized on that basis?”

And… it’s kinda different when you actually put these two things in context.

TMA/TME as a binary like cis/trans or multispec/mono or aspec/allo is on a first-stage of language creation, as far as I’m aware. There hasn’t been a 6+ year-long history of trying new words in the face of people nitpicking etymology while having the actual issue behind the needing a new term not engaged with in the meantime which proves that the word isn’t the actual problem and that this is only in-bad-faith in order to shut us up.

I understand the frustration, I even get a knee-jerk reaction to being told that the language you’re using is maybe not the best language (especially considering some of these people were the ones actively utilizing that tactic against transmascs wanting to speak on our issues; they’d be extra prone to be wary of this tactic). But a critique of the word choice itself being harmful isn’t in-and-of-itself a bad-faith critique, especially when it’s on a first attempt at the language and not a nitpick about etymology but a problem with labelling other people’s experiences as being totally exempt for them.

Like. On the surface you can make the “oh so transmascs don’t have to be perfect in their language but transfems do?” argument. But when you actually dig into what’s being discussed it really isn’t that simple.

"TERFs don't actually hate men; they actually see trans women as women because they engage in transmisogyny against us!"

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think that "ExterminatetheYchromosome.tumblr.com" thinks that we're women because we say we are...

''trans men wont suffer as much if you forcefully out them'' could you say that to an actual trans mans face though or can you only say it online? could you say any of this hateful shit if you had to actually articulate it face to face with a real person or are you only comfortable when its wrapped up in comfy internet discourse buzzwords?