Transfeminism's Need for Reform
As I read into transmisogyny theory, I feel a frustration at the repeated behavior to place a comparison between transfeminine experiences as contrasted to a transmasculine one, done to point out the uniqueness and severity of transmisogyny- yet unnecessarily and regularly undermining the experiences of transmasculinity in how those comparisons are handled and addressed.
Comparisons that will make definitive sounding statements about the transmasculine or masc GNC experience, yet neither quote nor collaborate with any transmasculine voices. Nor do they offer any insight to transmasculine experience beyond these comparisons, and end up presenting a very generalized and simplistic perspective of it, contrasted to the more robust elaboration of transmisogyny the text is centered on.
While there's use to compare trans experiences to elaborate on differences (and similarities), there is serious issue in this uneven portrayal. It is an issue to encounter major transfeminist texts only offering simplistic generalizations on transmasculine experience, their inclusion centered more on how useful it works as comparison to support the analysis on transmisogyny, than treated with respect for the far more complicated concepts they actually are.
Anecdotes and footnotes made up of partial or skewed perspectives and conclusions, rather than actual, real lives with a lot more nuance than these takes give them.
It's an effect of transmasculine erasure, and the erasure of gender nonconforming masculinity in society, and in feminism. I don't feel it is often ill intentioned, that the authors seek to actively dismiss us, but they clearly show a lack of familiarity and an irresponsibility with handling the subject. Our lack of voice becomes filled in with extrapolations of cis male or female experiences, or transfem experiences played in reverse. Our absence so accepted that we are not sought out to fill it.
I do think these authors, at the least, hold unconscious bias, as many people do. That bias is left unconfronted by this lack of transmasculine input and analysis, and this bias feeds the lack of desire to seek it out. A bias which foundationally treats us as having less important lives, less hardship, and less important things to say.
As I traverse these texts I cannot help but really begin to understand just how much this influences the impulse within transfeminist spaces and the trans community at large to devalue transmasculine experiences with their oppression. How this pattern was born from our erasure and now further feeds and justifies it.
I cannot ignore the complicated situation it creates for us, as important of content these texts contain and how universally recommended they are. How difficult that makes it when we raise our voices to criticize these elements. When passive devaluing and refusal to engage with the complexity of transmasculine experience becomes a casual element of analyzing transmisogyny through means of unbalanced comparison, then the disagreement with this kind of behavior and its conclusions can quickly be interpreted as downplaying the severity of transmisogyny.
Compound that with a hypervigilance from the trauma of transmisogyny, the negative stereotypes and attitudes about male entitlement or anti-feminism projected onto trans men, the normalized dismissal of our voices and our treatment as self-centered and attention seeking from misogyny, the attitude it is unimportant to listen and center us that these important texts contribute to, a very simplified understanding on man/masc=easy and woman/fem=hard (ideas left unchallenged because of a lack of transmasculine and masc gnc voices), and the general strain of anti-transmasculine prejudice within society and our communities which has not been properly analyzed or addressed, and therefore no one is expected to be held accountable for.
Then you create this toxic storm of the discourse we find ourselves within today.
One where transmasculine people are trying to formulate theory and discussed lived experiences through a transfeminist framework which lacks content addressing them, in argument with transfeminists (both tfem and tmasc alike) who have more robust library of theory to reference regarding transmisogyny, but theory which contains major blindspots and flaws which cannot be fixed or addressed without transmasculine input. Theory which normalizes an attitude that proclaims that input is unimportant.
I cannot emphasize that this is exactly why transmasculine analysis is needed in the field and in our discussions of transfeminism. While I am doing my research try to create a more disciplined analysis I continue to find many holes in our discussions of transfeminism, much of it I feel is carried over from cisfeminism. I find these texts very informative and agree they are important, but can be very flawed in its approach to us, and sometimes outright unwelcoming.
Having a measured approach of accepting its positives while voicing legitimate criticisms is necessary if we wish to improve our discussions and future theories. Outright dismissal of these works get us nowhere, neither is obfuscating the issues these works have and placing them upon an untouchable pedestal.
I don't mean to throw away these works or these authors by pointing out my criticisms of how they handle addressing transmasculine experience and how normalized it is to only address the transmasculine experience to say "you don't have to handle this."
Because even when that statement is true, it can be incredibly incomplete, because it fails to include how these concepts instead manifest differently. All it says is "you do not have to handle this" and moves on, without acknowledging, or seemingly understanding, what we actually do have to handle, that we do experience these concepts effecting our oppression in ways that are important and harmful.
The repeated assumption and implication that what we experience is more simple and less severe is a failure of these authors and a disservice to us and the trans community. We should expect better, and it is possible to voice that criticism while still valuing other aspects of their work.
Their work would be better without this, it does not require centering us to avoid actively or passively delegitimizing our struggles. It only takes giving us the consideration we need and deserve. If you do not wish to make the effort to listen to us, then do make the decision to speak about us.
I find it deeply disheartening just how frequently I encounter this approach over encountering our collaboration. That speaks for itself.
Feminism is an ever evolving branch of theories, which requires looking at itself critically to progress into better and more inclusive forms. Transfeminism is an important branch/evolution of feminism itself, and we should learn from its past contributions and continue to build upon its many positives, while being critical and understanding its failures- and bridging those gaps to make it more whole.
Just as feminism as a whole always must grow, so too must we demand transfeminism to evolve. We all will benefit from a more inclusive reform.
