The perfect organism.

I start by acknowledging that oppression that uniquely targets transmascs does exist.

Lack of visibility and thus awareness of the possibility of transition and resources, sexual assault, and gender essentialism are examples.

I understand that "transandrophobia" as a term comes from "transmisogyny" and flipping the misogyny part, as an etymologically natural (and therefore sensible) way of creating a word for the concept we are describing. However, we cannot be borrowing the nomenclature or terminology created under intersectionality theory to talk about our issues, because it does not work under intersectionality theory. I'll explain why in the next next paragraph.

If you don't care about theory and you just wanna know what word you can use that won't piss off transfems, I propose using "anti-transmasculinity". Grammatically it 1:1 replaces "transandrophobia" without invoking the notion of intersectionality theory, but feel free to suggest a different (and preferably more wieldy) term. Explanation of intersectionality theory as it pertains to this issue below.

"Transmisogyny" as a term was coined within the framework of intersectionality by Julia Serano, a gender theorist. It is by definition under the academic study of gender and oppression that an intersection is the overlap of two existing axes of oppression (perceived race, perceived gender, perceived religion, perceived sexuality).

This does not mean that oppression of transmascs specifically does not exist.

It's just that oppression against transmascs (systemically!!! As in, across all societies!!! <- very important detail) cannot be traced back to both misandry/androphobia and transphobia (because it cannot be traced back to misandry/androphobia), whereas oppression against transfems can be traced back to both misogyny and transphobia.

Because societally, masculinity is not oppressed. When we face systemic oppression against transmascs, it is not because of our perceived desire to become masculine. It is because we are perceived as failed or confused women which still traces back to misogyny and transphobia separately.

Consider a transphobe saying "you'll never be a woman!!!" towards a transfem. (Note also that "you'll never be a man!!!" is not a societally widespread expression of anti-transmasculinity in any capacity.) Transfems are correctly perceived as feminine and transgender, and this is thus an instance of transmisogyny accurately harming trans women.

Compare this to a transphobe saying "trans men are just women with BPD" or "most transmascs realise they're not trans before they're 20" or "ROGD". We are not being perceived as men in these instances, we are being perceived as irrational women (misogyny and transphobia, separately).

Denial of healthcare to trans men, which is traceable to misogyny (women's bodies aren't as well-studied or women's health issues are overlooked) or transphobia (being denied reproductive healthcare primarily provided to women) separately.

In this way, "transandrophobia" is not ""real"" under intersectionality, as in, the forms of oppression that specifically affect trans men are not traceable back to oppression of masculinity (although they are traceable back to oppression of transness, hence trans women say "I believe transphobia is real") the way that the forms of oppression that specifically affect trans women are traceable back to oppression of femininity (and transness).

In this way, Julia Serano states that

"misogyny may intersect with transphobia in different ways" for transgender men as opposed to transgender women, which "doesn't necessarily make transmisogyny 'wrong'; it may simply mean that we need additional language."

The next time you see a transfeminine person get mad at a post tagged with transandrophobia, it might not be because she is unreasonable and despises transmascs (though, seeing how many young transmascs have decided to use the term out of spite, maybe we'll get there). They're mad because you're borrowing their language and words without understanding the weight behind them.

Please use "anti-transmasculinity" instead or feel free to suggest another term that does not borrow the nomenclature of intersectionality.

Transfems and those who understand intersectionality and transmisogyny, please make corrections if any. This is something I've sort of come to understand in the last week after talking to a few transfem friends (non-gender scholars, mostly physicists and musicians).

The issue is we sometimes use these tags to seek commiseration with those who have experienced similar things because it would be tone-deaf to to complain about, for e.g. having to visit the gynecologist after being unable to get a hysterectomy when I hate having the ability to get pregnant, at someone who wishes she were able to get pregnant. But this is what I'd be risking (a pancakes and waffles overreaction which I've seen both transfems and transmascs be guilty of) if I tag with transphobia. So we tag with transandrophobia or anti-transmasculinity to avoid unintended commiseration audiences.

For advocacy (raising awareness, discussing solutions), I absolutely think it's vital to include all trans people in these discussions.

I start by acknowledging that oppression that uniquely targets transmascs does exist.

Lack of visibility and thus awareness of the possibility of transition and resources, sexual assault, and gender essentialism are examples.

I understand that "transandrophobia" as a term comes from "transmisogyny" and flipping the misogyny part, as an etymologically natural (and therefore sensible) way of creating a word for the concept we are describing. However, we cannot be borrowing the nomenclature or terminology created under intersectionality theory to talk about our issues, because it does not work under intersectionality theory. I'll explain why in the next next paragraph.

If you don't care about theory and you just wanna know what word you can use that won't piss off transfems, I propose using "anti-transmasculinity". Grammatically it 1:1 replaces "transandrophobia" without invoking the notion of intersectionality theory, but feel free to suggest a different (and preferably more wieldy) term. Explanation of intersectionality theory as it pertains to this issue below.

"Transmisogyny" as a term was coined within the framework of intersectionality by Julia Serano, a gender theorist. It is by definition under the academic study of gender and oppression that an intersection is the overlap of two existing axes of oppression (perceived race, perceived gender, perceived religion, perceived sexuality).

This does not mean that oppression of transmascs specifically does not exist.

It's just that oppression against transmascs (systemically!!! As in, across all societies!!! <- very important detail) cannot be traced back to both misandry/androphobia and transphobia (because it cannot be traced back to misandry/androphobia), whereas oppression against transfems can be traced back to both misogyny and transphobia.

Because societally, masculinity is not oppressed. When we face systemic oppression against transmascs, it is not because of our perceived desire to become masculine. It is because we are perceived as failed or confused women which still traces back to misogyny and transphobia separately.

Consider a transphobe saying "you'll never be a woman!!!" towards a transfem. (Note also that "you'll never be a man!!!" is not a societally widespread expression of anti-transmasculinity in any capacity.) Transfems are correctly perceived as feminine and transgender, and this is thus an instance of transmisogyny accurately harming trans women.

Compare this to a transphobe saying "trans men are just women with BPD" or "most transmascs realise they're not trans before they're 20" or "ROGD". We are not being perceived as men in these instances, we are being perceived as irrational women (misogyny and transphobia, separately).

Denial of healthcare to trans men, which is traceable to misogyny (women's bodies aren't as well-studied or women's health issues are overlooked) or transphobia (being denied reproductive healthcare primarily provided to women) separately.

In this way, "transandrophobia" is not ""real"" under intersectionality, as in, the forms of oppression that specifically affect trans men are not traceable back to oppression of masculinity (although they are traceable back to oppression of transness, hence trans women say "I believe transphobia is real") the way that the forms of oppression that specifically affect trans women are traceable back to oppression of femininity (and transness).

In this way, Julia Serano states that

"misogyny may intersect with transphobia in different ways" for transgender men as opposed to transgender women, which "doesn't necessarily make transmisogyny 'wrong'; it may simply mean that we need additional language."

The next time you see a transfeminine person get mad at a post tagged with transandrophobia, it might not be because she is unreasonable and despises transmascs (though, seeing how many young transmascs have decided to use the term out of spite, maybe we'll get there). They're mad because you're borrowing their language and words without understanding the weight behind them.

Please use "anti-transmasculinity" instead or feel free to suggest another term that does not borrow the nomenclature of intersectionality.

Transfems and those who understand intersectionality and transmisogyny, please make corrections if any. This is something I've sort of come to understand in the last week after talking to a few transfem friends (non-gender scholars, mostly physicists and musicians).

"I start by acknowledging oppression that uniquely targets transmascs does exist"

This is something that a lot of the people that are against the term transandrophobia just don't believe. I've talked to them, and it's a large part of why many are against the term, because they believe it's "just transphobia".

"Denial of healthcare to trans men... (Women's bodies aren't as well-studied or women's health issues' being overlooked)"

A trans man's body is not a woman's body. It is a body of a man, it is a man's body. That doesn't mean that medical misogyny doesn't affect them, it means the language used is transphobic and needs to be adjusted. We get doubly affected by medical discrimination, misogyny and transphobia from healthcare professionals, and lack of studies and research on bodies that went through estrogen dominated puberty, and the same issues with that, but after those bodies go through TRT.

"please use "anti-transmasculinity" instead"

I've been saying this for months! It's my preferred term, it's broader, more encompassing of what we're really trying to talk about, just overall better. But it's really a numbers game. Check that tag, how active is it? Better yet, do you check it or follow it? If someone wants to have a discussion about anti-transmasculinity, they aren't going to be able to find that in that tag. I've tried, and failed.

The people who say "just use another word/tag!" almost uniformly do not and will not engage with the anti-transmasculinity tag, or any exist literature or discussions about transmasculinity. Maybe if more people started using the tag, it would gain traction, but making one post going "use this instead!" and just dipping out is going to be inconsequential. You aren't the first to do it. If you want to see this change, start posting using that term. Have conversations about anti-transmasculinity, not just how we should use a different word.

(And that’s used to justify policing the language of others based on the idea that particular etymologies are the exclusive property of this understanding of intersectionality discourse.)

My understanding is that men—yes cis men too and I’m working from personal experience of having been perceived as one for decades—absolutely are harmed in various ways specifically because they are men at the same time as having net privilege relative to women. The ways our society harms men for being men do not have to be worse than the ways our society harms women for being women in order to exist, to be talked about, or to be important societal problems we should work to fix.

It’s also a failure to understand intersectionality theory—it is explicitly *not* just an oppression addition game. It is that identities cannot be *pulled apart*. Black feminist literature, where the term comes from, often talks about how black womanhood is conceptualized from a different place than white womanhood. From this, I take issue with the underlying idea that trans women’s needs are supposed to be the highest priority at all times. Serrano is good, but she has her blind spots, and I think that her erasure of transmasc, nonbinary, and intersex issues is a real problem that needs to be addressed meaningfully.

I absolutely acknowledge that I have not engaged heavily with existing discourse, and I've seen a number of responses to my post that are convincing me to take up a more complex view (e.g. oppression is more of a chart with every single intersection connected by arrows labelled "rewards x behaviour in" or "punishes y behaviour in") of the issues that our communities face (which I was already partial to, prior to seeing how frequently the vocal and popular transfem voices reject the notion of transandrophobia).

The motivation for making this post was the fact that many many transfems on tumblr and reddit echo the rejection of transandrophobia as a concept and as a term due to the specific framework described in my original post, and because I have heard transfem voices say they have no issue with anti-transmasculinity as a term that does not borrow intersectional nomenclature.

I have not myself read any of the relevant literature (inaccessibility, lack of time as a stem uni student, genuinely I'm sorry I'll get to it within my capacity), but I earnestly want to mend the rifts between the online transfem and transmasc communities within my capacity as a transmasc because these spaces are precious to both, and I honestly don't know how to square transfem rejection of transandrophobia under that version of intersectionality with trans solidarity is necessary/extremely beneficial to effective liberation.

That's my question: how do we as transmascs connect with transfems who subscribe to the "flattened" version/mis(?)understanding of intersectionality and reject the language we use to talk about our issues? Can we? And what of the trans women who are espousing these versions of intersectionality like sailatina2, princessfemmelesbian, morphinomenaljew, etc. ?

i dont have on official diagnosis on my record, and frankly i dont think anyone should seek one out

while i was doing a pretty intense round of multiple therapies for 3-4years, my anger management and dbt therapists agreed on comorbid aspd/npd as my unofficial diagnosis. this was after a few years going through my childhood trauma and adult struggles. the biggest factors for deciding on aspd were my inability to regain empathy even after years in a safe environment, my oppositional defiance that persisted into adulthood, my pathological need for control, and my consistent struggles with impulse control, substance abuse, and anger management neither of them put anything on record tho. they agreed with me that it would only make things more difficult and put me at risk. my bipolar disorder dx already restricts a lot of my rights and i didnt want to make it worse

having an official aspd diagnosis on ur medical history has literally no benifit to u. it doesnt open up any pathways for treatment, it doesnt help u get any kind of help, and it doesnt help things be covered under insurance. any therapy or treatment or medication u want to get can be obtained without it, often easier

its just a genuine threat to ur agency and rights to have one attatched to ur medical history, which other ppl can get access to. it can be used against u to give u harsher legal penalties, longer jail time, involuntary hospitalizations and instintutionalization, it can be used to strip u of ur legal right to make decisions for urself long term, to take ur children away, to refuse u treatment at certain facilities, and more

Have you found that to be relatable in any way to your experiences?

It is always a 60/40 for me tbh. My strongest emotion is anger. That runs at 200% while everything else runs at a solid 15%.

I’m much more likely to recall an event that caused me anger at the time, and get angry again, than I am to recall something that made me feel embarassed or guilty and feel those types of emotions again.

I think it’s because my capacity for emotions is so low, that experiencing one’s that are more complex is just fucking harder. Anger is straightforward and easy to understand. Something like guilt though? That’s layers like an onion girliepop and I don’t have the emotional capacity to be dicing and slicing to reach the core every damn time I remember something.

You could also attribute this to survival. People that recall shit that makes them feel embarassed, etc each time? that makes them vulnerable and/or weak to manipulation from the person who made them feel guilty/embarassed, and they will not last very long.

We talk about solarpunk like it's a dream, but Singapore is already living the dream. As of 2018 all new large buildings have to meet a standard of sustainability, with the goal to "green" 80% of the capital city by 2030.

Oasis Hotel

Gardens by the Bay

ParkRoyal Hotel

CapitaGreen Office Tower

Kampung Admiralty Senior Housing and Services, named World Building of the Year in 2018

aspd-culture is

Gosh, I feel this. ASPD culture is radical acceptance that your brain will be angry at whomever and whatever it wants, including no one and nothing, if it so chooses.

Plain text below the cut:

i am not excusing people who ARE abusive and whose abuse DOES tie in with their cluster B symptoms, but im also not putting up with the fucking idea that its somehow all of our fault that other people want to assume were all heartless shitty irredeemable monsters. personality disorders are chronic and incurable but people with them can still improve and be kind, even if they make occasional mistakes just like how everyone else makes mistakes.

it is not ableism to call out abusive behavior and make the person responsible face consequences, thats entirely correct. it is not ableism to say that people need to put in effort to overcome harmful behavior patterns, also completely correct.

what IS ableism is assuming that everyone who struggles with cluster B symptoms is automatically a full blown abuser, and sweeping aside the progress that so many of us have worked so damn hard to make, just because YOU dont think that progress is good enough. i dont care if you also have a cluster B disorder, its still ableism. some of us have worked hard to be good people and dont fucking appreciate having that effort spit on. and if you feel that your toxic behaviors tread into the territory of being abusive, that is not my fucking problem just because we have the same or similar disorders.

and what ELSE is ableism is the fucking fact that people with cluster B disorders struggle so much to find any resources to improve our toxic behaviors because psych professionals see us as inherently horrible and everything written about our disorders revolves around how others can cope with being around us, how to heal from us, how to spot us, how to manipulate us before we can manipulate them. THAT is fucking ableism. a lack of resources because others are so hellbent on hating and blaming and hurting us. how are we supposed to even be expected to improve when nobody is willing to help us? and yet we do. despite everything there are those of us who improve. and its not fucking acknowledged.

a terrifying presence has entered the room

(bloody ver. under the cut)

This one first because it actually pisses me off more than the first one. I cannot believe this could be in good faith considering the first half of the sentence that you so kindly cut off includes the following:

“How environmental and biological factors interface to modulate risk for these outcomes is not yet understood, however, the interaction of adversity with a variable number tandem repeat (uVNTR)…”

Hyacinthus loving life and traveling, as a Prince he never could go far. Flying with Apollo in his chariot, he was bright eyed with wonder at the world. Apollo doing that for him even after death. He turned him into a flower so he could keep enjoying the living world.

Hya one day coming back revived and apollo keeps apologising and apologising for being selfish and not being able to let his soul go. But Hyacinthus shushes him, "I would have gone to the underworld but I would have never been happy as a drifting soul. You know it. You let me keep experiencing the world. As a flower, people planted me in gardens and cities. I felt the sun and rain. And I saw you still. You often visited me and would tell me stories. I was happy. Thank you."