so this post was about the misuse of marxist terminology in discussions about transandromisia but aside from that honestly i think a lot of this logic boils down to subconsciously assigning the category of “male”/“men” this default cisgender and perisex quality.
this idea of a “man” is not expansive and does not include what this can look like outside of the cis and perisex norm: it comes with a connotation that implies manhood ought to be and both preferably and typically is imposed and perceived consistently, unmistakably visible externally, and lacking complexity. “men” as a whole in these discussions is referring to the class whose manhood is assumed to be non-queer.
it’s not that trans men* aren’t being counted as men as a gender - at least within these discussions. it’s just that the default state of “man” as a group and as a class is cisgender and perisex, and trans men are a special type of men that extend the category, rather than a natural part of the group that belongs without saying.
*and transmascs; there’s an added layer of misgendering and exorsexism to this where more complex identities are stripped away in order to be measured against the patriarchy in a way that makes sense according to binary feminism.
like, for example. male privilege. as i said in the tags, it’s not an amorphous concept that’s gone without specific examples. feminists have clearly defined male privilege as not only “privilege that men are granted and women are not,” but there are plenty of examples that anyone can name and that are conveniently omitted in these conversations: lower rates of sexual and domestic violence, higher income and career opportunities and respect in general, social dominance, good media representation, societal sympathy and benefit of the doubt, access to reproductive healthcare; <- YOU DO NOT NEED TO GOOGLE THESE THINGS. you also do not need to be an expert in transmasc issues to know that these privileges are not afforded to transgender men and mascs as a group.
and the easy explanation for this is that trans men, under the cisheteropatriarchy, are not viewed as men, and are not granted the benefits that are supposed to come with manhood. and this exception is the same exact one that is made within cisgender and transandromisic feminist discussions - trans men are an exception to manhood.
the “male” in male privilege refers to cisgender men. the concept and model we currently have of male privilege is cisnormative because historically feminism has been cisnormative - the fact that these privileges don’t apply to trans men is proof of this! transfeminism and transmasc theory need to expand this model, that’s a given. that’s something that we can and should all do.
transgender men = men = privileged logically does not work because the middle, unspecified “men” is really referring to cisgender men. it’s not manhood as the expansive and fluid category that it is, it’s men as they are counted within cisgender feminist framework and as they are counted within male privilege.
the fact that it even needs said in these discussions that trans men belong to the overall category of men is proof of this. the insinuation is that trans men don’t naturally belong to this group, that trans men aren’t obligated to it in the same way that cisgender people are.
your queer feminist theory needs to include transmascs, including trans men. this isn’t men talking over women or men making it about themselves; stop pretending like that’s punching up when trans men are both seen by the vast majority of people, including feminists, as tranny freaks and mentally ill women. the definition of man, male, and manhood must include transgender men and mascs from the beginning, and with no room for misinterpretation. leaving the implication that transmascs are exempt unspoken is both dangerous and plainly misgendering.
origamiaround
dailybridgerton
discoholicmusic
jbbartram-illu
jacobvanloon
