Yo

It's not toxic masculinity if it's gendered trauma from having been a trans person in a cissexist society all your life — and besides, the whole point of transitioning is figuring out who you are and what brings you joy! You don't need to repent for your personal discomfort with femininity. You don't need to force yourself into another box that doesn't feel right. I spent 27 long years trying to do just that & guess what, it didn't work!

can a trans man experience (cis) male privilege? yes. can a trans woman? yes. and so can a cis woman! hell, a femme perisex cis woman with a gender neutral name could if she's assumed to be a cis man on a resume. male privilege is not an on/off switch. the idea that it is stems from cissexist understandings of male/female as entirely separate and static categories which everyone can and must be understood through. trans people in feminism are expected to constantly defend and deflect accusations of being Privileged Male Oppressors by promising cis perisex women that our experiences are just like theirs! we don't have any scary opinions that don't align with their worldview! we swear we won't ever make them have to reflect on how being cis+perisex has biased them and potentially made their analysis of gender at all inaccurate! trans experiences are only considered valuable to cisfeminism to the extent that they reaffirm what cisfeminists already hold true. thats why they only ever want to talk about a very simplistic narrative around wages pre/post-transition. its extremely unthreatening to cis people because it presents transness in patriarchy as just going from one cis role to another; it doesn't ask cis feminists to expand their paradigm to include the ways in which trans people are treated as a class and their own complicity in transphobic oppression.

which is why trans men have been getting fucked over by trans-affirmng cisfeminism. because by virtue of having our gender acknowledged, we are expected to forfeit our place in the feminist movement and adopt the role of outsider along cis men*. and its also why trans women and MTX people get fucked over the minute they cannot or refuse to describe their experiences through the one or two approved narratives. cisfeminism cannot tolerate transness-as-transness. it has to be compressed and reduced and diluted into something that fits within a cis-centric framework. we aren't allowed to have nuanced and intersectional conversations about trans men & other trans folks relationship with male privilege, the things we have to sacrifice to there, how fleeting it can be, the fact that for some of us being read as "biologically male" is actively more dangerous than being read as female... if it isn't familiar to cis women, then it means you aren't really oppressed.

Even if you're genderqueer and going "gender isn't real! smash the binary!" there's a real possibility you haven't unlearned or might still be upholding some very transphobic sentiments, and you should do some introspection about that

Some people only want acceptance for their trans identity but don't want to do the work to deconstruct what gender looks like, stop holding other people to their own gendered expectations, and unlearn their internalized bigotry about different trans identities

Sometimes the [trans identity] is specifically relevant to the identities referenced, such as people who will do surface level acceptance of "boygirls" but then call multigender people problematic for using "contradictory" terms like male lesbian, or asking "are you normal about intersex people?" to point out the prevalent intersexism in the multigender community.

But if the [trans identity] or intersex identity being asked about isn't related to multigender community issues, it seems a little strange to consistently single out labels like boygirl and fagdyke that tend to be used by multigender people in these posts. All kinds of trans people can be transphobic about other trans identities. All kinds of trans people are capable of fighting for their own acceptance but not anyone else's. But these posts are pretty frequently just about boygirl fagdykes.

It reminds me of posts about a "theyfab named Sock being transmisogynistic." Are there transmisogynistic FTX nonbinary people? Yes, no one is immune from perpetuating transmisogyny. But these types of posts are still exorsexist.

Similarly, though I'm not saying the pattern of "sure you're a boygirl fagdyke genderfreak but do you respect [trans identity]" is necessarily exorsexist or transmultiphobic, since like I said they do address important points, some of which actually are multigender community issues. But people do use those types of posts to be really transmultiphobic and exorsexist, but in an "acceptable" way, because the boygirls are transphobic so it's okay to hate them.

Some examples in the notes of this sort of post asking 'are you normal about trans women?":

This assumes that multigender identities are only an online thing, only a young person thing, that all multigender people look cis in real life, that no multigender person has experienced real transphobia.

Again, this assumes that no multigender person "looks like a freak" for their gender, that they never struggle with transphobia offline. And straight up saying they have a "huge issue" with girlboy genders.

Multigender labels aren't "performative titles," they're our genders. This person is just straight up admitting they think our genders are fake, that they're only "titles" and not real fucking identities.

"I tend to Not like multigender people" okay so we're just saying the quiet part out loud now

You think we all pass 100% of the time with no issues or effort

You don't think feminine trans men are "real" trans men

You assume we're all transitioning to escape misogyny

You think we aren't oppressed by society

You think our problems are inherently transmisogynistic

You think it's okay to reduce us to our genitals for any reason

You think masculine trans men being themselves are inherently toxic

You think us demanding to be seen and heard and have space within our own community is us being "MRAs" and "transmisogynists"

You think transandrophobia (the idea that trans men experience oppression based on their specific intersection of transness and gender) doesn't exist or inherently is transmisogynistic

You're only okay with trans men if they don't go on T and/or get surgery

You actively try to discourage trans men from going on T and/or getting surgery

You think the previous two points don't include bottom surgery

You think all trans men are bottoms

You think gay trans men are fetishizing gay cis men

You think all transmasc artists are inherently cringe/bad at what they do

You think transmascs only exist to uplift transfems

You think anyone presenting as masculine is inherently dangerous

You think that only men/masculine presenting people can be dangerous

You think that women/feminine presenting people are always safe

You don't think trans men are in danger when forced to use the women's restroom

You think that any oppression/discrimination transmascs face is "run of the mill transphobia" or "run of the mill misogyny"

You think anything I've said on this post means that transmisogyny isn't real or matters less

I understand the poll setup is not ideal for all the nuances of binary vs nonbinary, but I'm trying with tumblr's limits.

Because it ignores and downplays the violence trans men face in bathrooms it frames trans men as a threat to cis women.

Also just the whole thing of framing someone who looks like a man/masculine as being a threat is just . Weird. Non-passing trans women aren’t a threat either.

There are countless radfem and T(W)ERF blogs that I’ve blocked that said ‘secret radfem sideblog’ in the description.

Ace/aro exclusionism

Bi exclusionism or claims that bi people are “less queer” bc of “straight passive privilege”

Saying you have to be dysphoric to identify as trans

Invalidating nonbinary people

Calling queer a slur regardless of context, saying people can’t identify as queer, and saying that it can’t be reclaimed

“Mogai hell”, “kweer”, or otherwise mocking less common labels and claiming they are “just cishets who want to feel special”

Excluding sex workers from feminist discussions or claiming that sex work is inherently evil

Men are evil

Women are pure

Black and white framing

Talking about separating the communities

Only this group can use these words

Lesbians are better than bi women

Straight women deserve/should not be surprised if they get abused

Panphobia

Think of the children

Anti kink

The idea that lesbian relationships are inherently more pure and more holy than any other kind

Lesbians are Pure and not Ickily Obsessed with Sex

Like really a very … sexless… view of lesbianism entirely. This lesbianism is entirely G-rated

This doesn’t mean “ace lesbians are TERFs.” It means that if someone’s idea of lesbianism excludes kinky lesbians or the idea that a lesbian can be abusive in a relationship or… doesn’t encompass the idea that women can sometimes be fucking horndogs? It’s leaning on some very radfem ideas about women and their sexuality, ideas that infantilize women and flatten their lives down to “innocent cherubs.”

Step 1) identify potential recruit - IE someone vulnerable. Common targets are children, people who’ve been rejected by peers or other communities, people who are lonely and lacking external support systems, etc. Those groups are more likely to be targeted but anyone in a sufficiently vulnerable place can be susceptible to this kind of indoctrination

why would a terf try to indoctrinate someone making a post that is literally advocating for trans inclusion? a couple reasons

OP is expression a genuine critique of the way cis centric feminism excludes and hurts trans people. But it also expresses 1) a feeling of isolation and 2) frustration with a group the cult opposes. both of these things can easily be used to manipulate ppl into joining the cult

Now obviously OP is clearly educated on the dog whistles used by terfs and know to tell them to fuck off, but the terf doesn't exactly know that when making their manipulative comments. when recruiting for a cult you might as well make an attempt to manipulate and recruit anyone who seems viable, the worst they can do is say no. and if they tell you to fuck off because they saw through your attempts at manipulation, then you can get yourself a nice screenshot of a "evil" trans person "rudely" replying to a "kind and helpful message". it's a win win and all that.

Step 2) the soft sell. you need to hook the possible recruit in. this can be done in many ways, maybe they draw you in with a promise of community or salvation, or you're convinced to go to a barbecue with a friend. they talk to you about the unfairness of society and offer you an answer to your problems.

the soft sell used above is an ideological sell, with a nice sprinkle of love bombing to seal the deal

"we know. we care." and "We do not expect you to be our human shield. In fact, we want to stand with you and take the blows with you," are both manipulative statements designed to pray on those feelings of loneliness. they imply protection, community, people who want you and care about you. why would anyone reject that?

"We would react with feminist analysis about how bio sex affects sex based oppression more than gender identity."

this is the soft sell of the ideology. they don't come out the gate calling trans people predators, they water down and soften the ideology into the most palatable form possible. terms like "feminist analysis" are carefully chosen to make the argument sound as academic and reasonable as possible.

"but its often difficult when there are people who think that being called female is an insult instead of a body type."

once again a soft sell, but this time instead of trying to make themselves seem academic the focus is on making the opposition look ridiculous. It implies trans people are ridiculous for not wanting to be referred to something as “simple” and “obvious” as a body type, while also flattening and oversimplifying the very complex topic of the spectrum of human sexes and genders. Basically it’s a very condescending straw man argument

It also paints trans ppl as misogynistic for thinking “that being called female is an insult”. Paint yourself as the desirable moral high ground vs their problematic ideals. Once again this is a strawman argument.

Both of these strawman are particularly infuriating bc none of this was even being discussed in the original post. They dragged their strawman into the conversation just to make themselves look better, but whatever

“but its often difficult when there are people who think that being called female is an insult”

I’ve already established how “ppl who think being called female is an insult” is just a shady dogwhistley way to demonize trans ppl. It’s like setting up your own scarecrow and giving it a MRA t shirt and a trans bracelet

But if you focus on the “but it’s often difficult” part, this is just an obvious attempt to shift the blame for your feelings onto trans people. This implies that there are people who want to protect you but they just can’t because those mean ole trannies won’t let them :((. Isn’t it so tragic?

In this one short paragraph this person is using multiple types of manipulation and is demonstrating a pretty textbook attempt to indoctrinate someone. I applaud their form it’s near perfect /sarcastic

Now obviously OP knows enough to shut this down, but let’s talk about what might happen if someone who didn't know how to do that was approached by a similar message

The soft sell doesn’t stop after the first interaction. that's just the litmus test to see if they'd be wasting their time on you or not. The point is to keep the conversation going and continuously manipulate them deeper and deeper into this worldview. The inductor will often try to take things to a private conversation, like going out for coffee or, more commonly online, taking things to DMs. This prevents any friends of the possible recruit or more knowledgeable tumblr users from poking holes in their logic or identifying their manipulative techniques. It’s also helpful to isolate the possible recruit as quickly as possible.

This leads pretty easily into the next few steps, step 3: the new worldview (tldr distort their worldview into one that suits your own needs), step 4: establishing the enemy(an enemy gives them something to oppose, to fear, to direct their anger towards, and a reason for you to ask them to stay so you can fight the enemy together), and step 5: the dear leader. From there you use step 6: peer pressure to prevent them from leaving, fueled by an unhealthy dose of love bombing and punishing dissent

the middle steps (3-5) don't have to be in that exact order and are usually involved in the early steps to indoctrinate, and then weaponized against ppl in the later steps to keep them from leaving or criticizing