Chips

person B getting attacked with an axe

An old, decrepit laundromat gets replaced by an upscale bakery? And people are mad? It’s not that the poor hate organic vegan cupcakes, it’s that most of us don’t have a way to do laundry in our own home.

Run-down corner stores replaced by hand-made designer clothing boutiques? We don’t hate your eco-fabric shawl, but I can’t eat that for dinner after work like I could have a can of beans I grabbed from that corner store when I don’t have time to take the bus to the real grocery store after work.

What gentrification brings in and of itself is not typically bad, it’s that gentrification brings institutions of leisure and pleasure and makes it so that the poor have to go farther out of their way for basic necessities. It turns low-income living spaces into local tourist attractions. It can even create food deserts by putting restaurants, grocery stores, etc. in that the majority of the lower class cannot afford.

Which should be a pretty good clue that trans men are not part of the oppression class. I'm not saying trans men are saints or whatever, just that if someone gets punched, so to speak, and they lack the capacity to punch back with the uncontested weight of popular opinion behind their punches, that's kind of a critical component of the definition of the oppressor class. In order to be part of the oppressors, you have to have the ability to wield the tools of oppression. Trans men as a group are universally denied access to the power of the oppression class, and in particular the power held by cis men.

Treating trans men as part of the oppression class, and in particular with the hostility and suspicion marginalized people reserve for the oppression class, simply because they are men doesn't make sense. Most obvious thing in the entire world. Takes like two minutes to reason it out. But god damn if there are not a lot of people on here doing exactly that. It's become probably the biggest queer infighting discourse currently.

There are the people just parroting other more influential people, of course, but it had to start somewhere. And based on the particular points often discussed, it feels like some number of queer people were really traumatized by men and then discovered a group of men they could throw punches at without suffering the kind of life destroying consequences that can occur when you attack part of the oppression class.

This is basically point for point the exact justification that exclusionists always give. I'm not even going to bother dismantling it.

You know what the smoking gun is though? If this is actually primarily about bigotry trans women experience at the hands of trans men then why is so much of the discourse publicly litigating the validity of trans masculine identities and establishing trans women as having more serious issues than trans men?

This is what always happens. 10 years ago people were clutching pearls about how lesphobic bi people were, which is why we just needed to talk constantly about how bi women can't use the words femme and butch, and a few years later people were just so concerned about all the prejudice coming from aces which is why it was vital we constantly challenged their status as queer. And the terfs will never fucking shut up about how they are constantly victimized by trans women while they call us men.

If this was trans women defending themselves from mean prejudice trans men we would not be talking about if transandrophobia is a valid concept or playing oppression olympics.

But I do fully believe these people believe trans men as constantly attacking them because exclusionists come to believe that the identity of their target group is inherently a threat. That is why exclusionist discourse always revolves so heavily around points of identity.

I think there is one more aspect of this that is worth talking about. I appreciate these tags, thank you, but notice the part I underlined. "The theory argument has no actual relationship to the behavior of the group". The things is, from the viewpoint of the exclusionist, the theory has *everything* to do with the behavior of the group.

This is actually the reason I brought it up. If this is about trans women dealing with bigotry, why are we talking about the validity of trans masculine identities? Because exclusionists believe that the identity itself is an attack.

Among the reactions to my initial post was the assertion that it was ignorant and anti-feminist. Which is weird because what could possibly be considered anti feminist? I only presented three ideas: Trans men are not part of the oppression class simply because of their identity as men, people who are not part of the oppression class make for poor targets if your goal is stopping oppression, and some people lash out at the wrong people when they are hurt because they are a convenient target.

The second and third points are so widely accepted anyway that it beggars belief that someone would try to deny them. It isn't so much activism as basic logic and psychology respectively. And in fact both are important ideas in feminism, so they can't be anti feminism.

Which means my apparent anti feminism has to be in the idea that trans men are not part of the oppression class simply because of their identity. To this person, transmasculine identities are inherently a threat.

Oh and I am sure they don't believe that on a conscious level, I'm sur they have plenty of trans masculine friends they are not afraid of or bothered by, but that's just the thing. prejudice is always a blind spot. My mother in law swears up and down she isn't racist and isn't afraid of black people and she truly believes it, but that doesn't change the fact that she crosses the street when she sees a "suspicious" black man.

So what makes a trans masculine person "suspicious" in the mind of an exclusionist? Well, based on the fact that a central point of the ongoing discourse is maleness as a vector of oppression and the emphasis on TME/TMA, it would appear that asserting their identity is a major trigger. Being too assertively male in a queer space, particularly a queer space that is traditionally female.

Now that is an explanation of what is going on, not proof of it. But the pattern starts to become alarmingly clear when you look at every other exclusionist movement ever. They always focus on matters of identity as the reason the group should be excluded or minimized, basically always by focusing on isolated aspects of the identity in question and drawing parallels to the oppression class via mis or over applied theory.

With the original rad fems excluding bi women, it was the perceived "heterosexual" part of the identity that made bi women a threat. How could gay women ever be safe among half heteros? Heteros are the enemy!

With rad fems and trans women it was all about how trans women were different from women, had different experiences, were "socialized male", and how can women ever be safe among people who are socially male?

With aros and aces the theory justification was all about how gay people experience oppression because of who they are attracted to. Being attracted to no one (a gross oversimplification in and of itself) is not that at all, therefore they are practically heteros! Would you feel safe with cishets in your queer community?

It's the same fucking thing every time. People grossly misappling theory insisting that anyone who doesn't agree with them is lesphobic or anti feminist or anti gay or whatever because ~theory~. This time people got their panties in a twist about maleness again. Trans men are men! How dare they say they are oppressed for their identity! That's so anti feminist, I read book on feminist theory during my queer formative years that said maleness isn't a vector for oppression, that obviously trumps any observed reality of oppression or change of context!

Utter nonsense.

It's not even a pattern reserved for queer exclusionists. Over reliance on theory instead of observed reality? Hostile reaction to a threat to their world view? Attacking the validity of the identity? Sounds familiar!

"It's adam and eve, not adam and steve! Hur hur hur got'em"

Now take this logic and apply it to things like ADHD, autism, clinical depression, and other less visible/divergent disabilities. You cannot think your way out of feeling.

I mentioned how common it is - especially in more conservative Christian places - for trans men to be set up with a husband by their family and then be forcibly impregnated as a way to make them detransition to someone who runs a whole blog about ‘spreading awareness about trans issues’ and she looked at me like I was crazy and said “woah I never knew that happened to trans men.”

this is someone who is not transmasculine and is not a trans man, using us and associating with us to further her own agenda. she is using us as a shield, with absolutely no thought to the consequences this is going to have for us in particular.

the choice to exclude trans women and fem sexual violence victims and survivors only, while making room for cis people, cis men, is potentially the most upsetting thing about this. deeply reprehensible. this is really one of those moments you remember really anyone out there can make a blog and pass themselves off as a voice that has any idea of what they are talking about.

It isn’t perfect, but following the initial post I assigned each timezone one sun deity, so travelers know who they might pray to while exploring the world.

This is genuinely one of the most vile posts I've ever seen on here.

The idea that transmascs (or any marginalized person, really) are excited about the idea of getting to be "higher" on the social ladder than someone else. This is just plain bigotry with literally no basis in reality.