one issue i have with many anti-transmasculinity discussions on here, is the way anti-transmasculinity (or whatever term is currently in circulation) gets conflated with the oppression of other marginalized men, especially in conversations about structural power.
it is generally true that marginalized men often oppress the women in their communities. black women, for example, experience some of the highest rates of intimate partner violence, and most perpetrators are black men. practices like FGM exist in african countries, where african men mutilate the bodies of little african girls. across many marginalized groups, we can point to clear, well-documented examples of sex- and gender-based subjugation, including instances where marginalized men collude with white supremacy against marginalized women (go look up âweavechimp,â then search it on twitter to see who primarily is using it).
so, when it comes to intersectional and black feminismâwhich transfeminism was nurtured byâit isnât hard to avoid any other form sex/gender-class analysis and say: âtrans men oppress trans women! thatâs basic intersectional feminism!â
but this ignores the actual positionality of trans men. it hallucinates when it comes to transmasculinity. it relies on extrapolating from movements where that framework does apply, and where (cis) menâs liberation does not depend on feminist politic, so men are excluded from feminist analysis by default.
the issue is not the exclusion of marginalized cis men from conversations about sex-gender liberation. the issue is the lack of material analysis of trans male oppression, because if you think about this stuff for more than a few minutes, that entire thing falls apart.
there is no cis man who can be forced to get pregnant and then denied an abortion. there is no cis man who can be legally or socially compelled to wear a hijab. statistically, trans men are more vulnerable to rape and sexual assault than any other group, but especially cis men. trans male liberation is uniquely intertwined with feminist liberation politic, because trans men are directly subjected to misogynistic systems in ways cis men are not. this is why extrapolation does not work.
like, black femicide is overwhelmingly perpetrated by black cis men. east asian cis men have created entire online networks dedicated to sexually degrading, harassing, and blackmailing women in their lives. in MENA, cis men murder women in the name of âhonour.â these are concrete examples of marginalized men exercising patriarchal power over women in their communities. there is no trans analogue to this.
trans men are not killing trans women at disproportionate rates. trans men are not disproportionately raping or abusing trans women. trans men do not have traditions of trans female genital mutilation, trans female breast ironing, or trans female foot binding. trans men are not subjecting trans women to forced marriages, bride burnings, lobotomies, acid attacks, or honour killings. there is no trans female coverture, where trans men absorb the existences of their female counterparts. trans men do not dominate medical institutions and deny trans women care. there is no historical or contemporary system that could reasonably be described as a âtrans male patriarchy.â
in fact, when we examine these same misogynistic practices, we find that trans men are often subjected to them, and have never facillitated them. trans men are killed in the name of honour. trans men experience FGM. trans men face extremely high rates of sexual and domestic violence.trans men are forced into marriages, compelled to wear hijabs, denied medical care, and left in pain. these are not abstractions. trans men face the direct consequences of transgressing the feminine role in society.
the people who disproportionately enact violence against trans women are not trans men. they are cis men. the people who disproportionately enact violence against trans men are also cis men (and a sizeable number of cis women).
the capacity of trans men to collaborate with patriarchy is not unique or exceptional. what is distinctive is how violence against trans men, and collusion against them, is minimized precisely because they are framed as beneficiaries rather than as targets of misogyny.
so no, anti-transmasculinity is not analogous to the oppression of marginalized cis men as a group, trans men are not simply "cis men with vaginas." transmasculinity is it's own experience, and anti-transmasculinity must be understood in it's own context. treating it as anything different obscures the ways trans men are positioned within misogyny and patriarchy, and it ultimately undermines both feminist analysis and analyses about anti-transmasculinity specifically, because it becomes clear that all these essays, these books, these academic articles about transmasculinityâare all based in daydreams, or imagined examples of "what should be true," rather than material analysis, a.k.a., "what is actually true."
