I was supposed to be that goat!

This is an ad.

Oh? For what?

I am going to start with this comment on my last post that I think expertly nails down the particular issue with whipping girl, where all the problems stem from. I am not going to cite the person who wrote it because I guarantee this post is going to generate a lot of hate and I want to put as many steps as possible between seeing this and harassing that person, but if you wrote this know I think you are great.

I am going to be less kind about it than the above comment. Julia Serano came up with a social theory that explains the experiences of Julia Serano and then decided that was reflective of all of reality, which she then insists on very vehemently without any consideration of other points of view. She makes light of any prejudice people experience that isn't easily explained by her theory and outright denies and erases prejudice people experience if it is inconvenient to her theory.

I don't think she even accurately represents trans women (even most trans women) as a group. Her theory certainly does not line up with my experience as a trans woman, and the way she makes light or dismisses things that don't fit in her theory is honestly kind of offensive.

As written in whipping girl, her perspective is myopic, her conclusions unsound, and her thinking biased.

I would like to reiterate at this point I don't think she is a bad person, and there is a lot of good in whipping girl. Mainly when she is talking about her own experiences and resists the urge to extrapolate to what that means for other people. And from what I have seen she has improved significantly in the last twenty years. Like I said in my last post, be very critical of a person's words, be as generous as possible with the person.

She fucked it up bad with Whipping Girl, but that doesn't mean she has nothing of value to say or she is a bad person or she can't improve or anything like that. What it does mean, unfortunately, is that many key elements of Whipping Girl are critically flawed and steeped in bias. And even more unfortunately, its the most important parts of the book.

In particular, the section where she coins transmisogyny. To read the whole section, start at the part titled "Trans Woman Manifesto". It is too long to cite in it's entirety here, but this is the part where she actually coins the term transmisogyny:

"When a trans person is ridiculed or dismissed not merely for failing to live up to gender norms, but for their expressions of femaleness or femininity, they become the victims of a specific form of Trans Woman Manifesto discrimination: trans-misogyny. When the majority of jokes made at the expense of trans people center on “men wearing dresses” or “men who want their penises cut off,” that is not transphobia—it is trans-misogyny. When the majority of violence and sexual assaults committed against trans people is directed at trans women, that is not transphobia—it is trans-misogyny. When it’s okay for women to wear “men’s” clothing, but when men who wear “women’s” clothing can be diagnosed with the psychological disorder transvestic fetishism, that is not transphobia—it is trans-misogyny. When women’s or lesbian organizations and events open their doors to trans men but not trans women, that is not transphobia—it is trans-misogyny."

The thing to notice about this section is that transmisogyny is coined almost entirely in terms of comparative oppression. Its not just that trans women experience qualitatively different oppression, it is, according to her, they experience the worst oppression. The most jokes, the most violence, etc.

As it is coined in Whipping Girl, transmisogyny is defined by comparing oppression. That is the central point. And I think this is especially driven home by what she says immediately proceeding her coining the term:

"While trans people on the female-to-male (FTM) spectrum face discrimination for breaking gender norms (i.e., oppositional sexism), their expressions of maleness or masculinity themselves are not targeted for ridicule—to do so would require one to question masculinity itself."

A statement I have called out in the past for being ignorant and completely divorced from reality. This is one of the major points where she outright dismisses the oppression of others because it is convenient to her theory. This is so important to her defining transmisogyny that it immediately proceeds it. What is the single most important thing she wants in your mind when she defines transmisogyny? What does she choose to be the thing that frames the definition? Her assertion that trans men don't have it as bad.

This is really fucking bad.

The context required to understand why comparing oppression, especially in a very hard way like this, is so bad is the stuff of entire books worth of theory.

It is in fact so bad that I don't even know how to explain how bad it is. It is too big a subject to get across in so brief a format. It is the sort of thing you can only do safely with very, very careful consideration, probably something only an expert should do with a lot of careful qualifying statements, and the rest of us should just avoid it completely. Anyone who has studied exclusionist movements of the past 60 years will understand that comparing oppression is always a pillar of exclusionist movements. Disabled communities warn against this, and specifically consider it prejudice to compare "how bad" different types of disability have it. The autistic and neurodivergent communities warn against it. We have special, insulting terms for the prejudice comparing oppression results in ("Playing oppression olympics", for example.)

You don't and shouldn't have to take my word for it. But I can't meaningfully demonstrate it any further here. Go study this on your own if you need more context.

And I don't even think her definition of transmisogyny rests on sound facts. If we include the immediately proceeding statement about trans men, she makes six statements. Of those six, the statement about trans men is just pain prejudice on her part, the statement about trans women suffering the most violence we know isn't true (though it could be argued it was the best information she had at the time), and the idea that women can wear men's clothing shows a deep lack of understanding of recent feminism. Women (in some parts and cultures of the USA, because that is the very narrow view we are actually talking about here) are not allowed to wear mens clothing because masculinity is seen as better, but because feminists fought long and hard to make that a reality. Bias, ignorance, and dismissing the reality of the situation to better fit her theory are in full display in these three statements.

I would even argue that the statements about jokes and who is allowed in queer spaces are questionable in how lightly she addresses what are very complex issues, and that she is assuming much. I would argue that the only thing in the entire section that is not questionable is the second statement:

"When a trans person is ridiculed or dismissed not merely for failing to live up to gender norms, but for their expressions of femaleness or femininity, they become the victims of a specific form of Trans Woman Manifesto discrimination: trans-misogyny."

Now I don't think we should throw out transmisogyny as a term, it has evolved since then. But I do think that we have been dealing with the fallout of such a disastrous coining of the phrase ever since.

Understanding how transmisogyny was coined in Whipping Girl explains a lot about the behavior of people who have based a lot of their understanding of the trans woman condition on Whipping Girl. I am going to highlight two such things.

First off, there is an enduring hatred from many trans women towards any effort of trans men who speak out about their own oppression, especially when they try to create terms to use for themselves.

If a core part of the definition of transmisogyny is that trans women have it the worst, specifically in comparison to trans men, then someone trying to coin a similar term for trans men is directly challenging and attacking the very concept of transmisogyny. For example, if "transandrophobia" is, as many have said, "like transmisogyny, but for trans men", then they are incompatible terms under this understanding of transmisogyny and transfeminine as a whole.

People who understand transmisogyny as "trans women have it worst" see transandrophobia, a term that seems to mirror transmisogyny and is even sometimes explained in those terms, then they assume "transandrophobia" asserts that trans men have it worst. And since only one group can have it worst, this means they see transandrophobia, or any attempt to coin a conceptually similar term, as a direct attack on the idea of transmisogyny. This quickly becomes a deep and enduring belief that any trans man talking about their issues is making a direct attack at the concept of trans femininity. It becomes of overwhelming importance to establish an us and them and to establish who has it worse (TMA vs TME). And it becomes necessary to drive out anyone who would challenge the narrative they believe is so important.

And so an exclusionist movement is born.

The second consequence I want to talk about is the way that this kind of belief necessitates the flattening of trans women into fitting into the Julia Serano model. Trans women who do not fit this mold, who do not agree, who are not like Julia Serano, are excluded and silenced for going against the dominant narrative.

That covers trans men and trans women, but I know it hurts other trans people just as much, but I don't think I understand enough to explain why and how. I am sorry for that, but understand that this is incomplete without talking about how this contributes to other prejudices, especially exorsexism.

I've seen the rhetoric and attitudes youve gone over in Serano's book used to justify a lot of hate towards anyone who doesnt cleanly fit into binary genders. I consider myself transfem, but both manhood and gender neutrality are deeply important to my identity as well. For people like myself, rhetoric like Serano's in Whipping Girl serves to push us away from trans spaces. We must either be flattened into being Women Lite, or get othered as a lesser form of trans person. You see it with slurs like "theyfab" that get thrown at other enbies, or in the TME/TMA framework that some deeply misguided people treat as immutable.

As you pointed out, the bedrock of Serano's definition of transmisogyny is rooted in comparative oppression, which continues to be a root problem with transfeminism and trans infighting on this site. Thus, people hanging on her every word NEED a clean Us and Them. Defining trans women as the most oppressed gets a lot harder to do when you actually view gender as a spectrum. Much more convenient to fit people into neat boxes that continue to support your current worldview. So frameworks like TME/TMA are constructed that put everyone into those boxes regardless of self-identification or actual utility. And as with the gender binary, people who challenge these boxes are punished. I've been called "tme" by so many people, just for challenging this framework. Self-identified transfeminists, literally denying my transfemininity because my opinions are inconvenient to their theory. My EXISTENCE as a genderfluid trans woman is inconvenient to their theory.

If trans women being the most oppressed demographic is core to your conception of transfeminism, then anything challenging that belief is an attack on transfeminism itself. To them, my refusal to be categorized in a new binary is an attack on transfeminism. And no trans woman would do that, so I must be lying about being a trans woman. I must be a faker, an infiltrator, trying to get into trans women's spaces with the goal of hurting and harassing trans women.

'The Odyssey' by Eleonor Piteira.

Wraparound cover art for the Wraithmarked Creative special limited edition of 'The Odyssey' by Homer, available through Kickstarter.

“Midnight sun at the North Cape.” The beauty of the heavens. 1842. 

Anastasia Trusova — “Through The Walls”, 2020