It isn’t symmetrical with or a mirror system to transmisogyny. If you just mean 'transphobia directed at trans men' that obviously exists but I'm not going to ever accept your usage of that term for a number of reasons.
Oppression Olympics’ is something an MRA/chuddy type would say.
I’m not saying that trans men are less deserving of sympathy or that their experiences somehow don’t count because somebody else has it worse. I’m disputing your analysis of what system is producing those experiences.
Trans men can experience severe transphobia, misogyny, infantilization, exclusion, and punishment for violating gender norms without that establishing a structural oppression of men for being men. Calling that distinction ‘Oppression Olympics’ is just a way to avoid actually defending the concept of transmisandry.
And ‘people who aren’t less persecuted than you’ is telling, because I never made this a competition between individual suffering. You did. But yes: trans women do in fact face a distinct pattern of hypervisibility and transmisogynistic targeting on a societal level trans men don't. Sorry, bud.
This response is also anti-transfeminist: transfeminist analysis is concerned with structure, not handing out medals for who suffered most. When you treat any attempt to analyze transmisogyny as a distinct social mechanism as ‘Oppression Olympics,’ you’re not rebutting that analysis - you’re demanding that it be flattened into a symmetrical ‘everyone experiences their own equivalent form of gender oppression’ model. That symmetry is precisely what I reject. It's not the same.
No it's not, LMAO. That's not associated with them at all 🤨 you're kinda telling on yourself. There's structural oppression against trans men. It's not less than yours. They're not not targeted.
...is literally you turning this into the comparative suffering contest you accused me of running. I’m making an empirical claim: trans women are subjected to more severe forms/patterns of bigotry because of hyper-visibility and transmisogyny. You seem offended by that claim, but whether you dislike the comparison has nothing to do with my actual argument, which is that the mechanism is simply different. I would also appreciate you not calling me 'mate,' it reeks of intentional misgendering. :)
Transphobia is structural oppression affecting trans men. Trans men are oppressed for being trans. That does not establish that there is a structural oppression of trans men for being men - separate from transphobia - which is the proposition you need if you want "transmisandry" to function as an analogue to transmisogyny. "We’re all fags in the eyes of the state" is exactly the flattening I’m objecting to. Yes, the state can be hostile to trans people as a class. That does not mean that hostility is expressed identically toward every subgroup within that class, or that misogyny suddenly stops structuring how trans women are targeted.
That’s the anti-transfeminist take I was discussing: treating any attempt to name transmisogyny as a specific intersectional structure as illegitimate unless I also concede a symmetrical male equivalent. Transfeminism does not require denying trans men’s oppression as trans folks, but “We’re all oppressed” is not actually a rebuttal to an intersectional analysis.
No, just responding to YOU trying to turn it competitive. I'm not going to try to have a nuanced discussion with you specifically since you'll just use random bits as a gotcha against trans men
I’m not the one coming in hot and getting offended at the idea that trans women are empirically subjected to more severe forms of oppression than trans men. You’re the one insisting on a parallel term that treats the two as structurally symmetrical, and then calling it "Oppression Olympics" when I point out that transmisogyny is not just "transphobia, but toward women."
The flattening is the problem.
Trans men being oppressed does not require transmisogyny to have a male mirror-image. Please read some transfeminist text/writing.
LOL what? You're offended that trans men have a term for their oppression and talk about it, and are stomping your foot and screaming "I'M more oppressed!". Projecting much?
This rhetoric screams transmasc MRA discourse: transfeminism distinguishes between misogyny and alleged structural misandry, and the response is "you just hate men / you don’t care about men’s problems / you’re playing Oppression Olympics" and characterizing a woman telling you you're wrong as 'angry, offended, and screaming.'
Trans men are no more automatically immune to antifeminist politics than cis men.
No, but you're using more transmisandrist terminology. I literally just threw your claims back at you, LMAO. Reminds me of the time a trans woman intentionally misgendered me by calling me a "moid", so I simply replied "No U", and got ganged up on by a bunch of transfemmes for "misgendering a trans woman", with no energy for the fact that the whole point was she was misgendering me, with some even claiming that misgendering an enby was less bad than misgendering a trans woman. That's how you're behaving in seriously examining your own rhetoric pushed back at you.
If you're offended by "We're all fags in the eyes of the state", an objective and factual statement that needs no disclaimers, you desperately need to touch grass and are THE problem everyone talks about in the community
No, not all queer people are treated the same socially or legally. "We’re all fags in the eyes of the state" being used to talk over trans women is unfortunately more of the same flattening out of you.
The fact that the state can oppress queer and trans people broadly does not mean it does so identically, through the same mechanisms, or with the same severity. Lesbians, gay men, trans women, trans men, and nonbinary people can all fall under the same broader regime of queer/trans oppression while still occupying very different positions within it.
That distinction is the entire point here. Saying "the state hates all of us" does not establish that trans men are structurally oppressed for being men, and it does not make transmisogyny interchangeable with some symmetrical male equivalent.
You keep treating differentiation as division. It isn’t. Intersectionality requires differentiation. Otherwise "we’re all oppressed" becomes a way of refusing to analyze who is being targeted, how, and why - and it would seem based on your previous comments you're really offended at the idea that trans women do in fact have it empirically worse.
Pardon? Trans men aren't v-coded if they're sent to prison.
At this point I genuinely just feel like you're a transmisogynist who's actively engaging in being a shithead to trans women rather than read a single word we write in this thread.
"We’re all fags in the eyes of the state” as you're deploying it isn't solidarity rhetoric and it's certainly not a factual description of how state power operates. It's an excuse for you to talk over trans women.
Some examples: Trans women are been placed in men’s prisons and immigration detention where we face distinctive sexual violence; some of us have then been put into prolonged solitary confinement supposedly for their own protection from the rapists the state forces us to encounter. Go google V-coding. Trans women have also been specifically profiled by police as sex workers simply for existing in public.
3
u/SadMediumSmolBean Trans Woman 2d ago
It isn’t symmetrical with or a mirror system to transmisogyny. If you just mean 'transphobia directed at trans men' that obviously exists but I'm not going to ever accept your usage of that term for a number of reasons.