you look inside and the trans men and transmascs being “welcomed with open arms” are being misgendered, abused, pushed towards detransitioning, and the ones that are seen as too masculine to be treated as women-lite are being kicked out of the space the same as trans women

First of all - the idea that polyamory is a lifestyle choice comes from the fact that people don't understand ambiamory. Ambiamorous people are people who can be fulfilled by both monogamy and polyamory.

And just like how a greysexual person might identify as asexual because they fall under the acespec umbrella, an ambiamorous person might identify as polyamorous because they fall under the ethical non-monogamy umbrella.

People who are strictly polyamorous do not ever want monogamy, not in a long-term sense. They will settle for temporary monogamy, but that is not what brings them fulfillment.

Second of all - what marriage rights do polyamorous people have? What relationship rights do polyamorous people have? What adoption and familial rights do polyamorous people have? How many families would actually accept if their child came home and said they had multiple partners?

If you police the discussions of analysis that tmasc people use with "you're wrong, you clearly need to read (transfeminist text)" maybe reflect on if that text you are citing is one specifically written by or about transmasculine people, or includes any collaboration or input from tmascs at all. Which is like. Pretty much never the situation I encounter.

It's like, cool. I'm not saying that your source from a transfeminine activist/author creating a work about transmisogyny isn't an important contribution to transfeminism, or holding incredibly valuable insights (I mean these are often works I think everyone should read)- but consider that if these works specifically do not center or involve transmasculine people... why are you wielding it as the rule book to define how a discussion on transmasculinity should be held?

Why is it that tmascs need to defer the language they use to communicate their experiences to those who are not them or making any genuine effort to cite, collaborate, or include them?

Why is it automatically wrong to challenge the conclusions those kinds of texts declare about us? Is it that tmascs refuse to accept the conclusions of a work which never sought to sincerely involve them just out of ignorance or pride- or could it be because those conclusions might actually be very limited and inaccurate- no matter the quality of other aspects of the work?

And like. Importantly here.

....Transmasculine people have made contributions to transfeminist materials, you know?

Yes we are underrepresented in transfeminist texts but are we are absolutely there, currently and historically. Our underrepresentation isn't some lack of care we have either, it's quite obviously yet another byproduct of our erasure in society. We are underrepresented in many spaces of career and academia both because of the systemic barriers that exclude and prevent us from entering, and from the fact that our contributions go undervalued and unacknowledged. It is absolutely not unusual to see the curriculum of gender studies classes completely exclude texts made by transgender men and transmasculine people. But they do exist.

Maybe these discussions and ideas of transmasculine theory are so new and shocking to you because you've never taken the time to flesh out your understanding of transgender oppression beyond a handful of transfeminine authors who did not author their works with transmasculine people in mind nor in partnership?

Again. This is not saying these aren't important works, but it should not be so controversial to state they just are not always going to be entirely applicable as the framework through which all other approaches to transfeminism must orbit. Nor is it that are they flawless objects that should not be criticized. Examining the successes and the failures of a text is essential critical media literacy. Especially in areas of theory.

To treat these works as universal representatives of transgender experience and incapable of having limitations or blind spots is foolish. It is standard practice to go to directly to marginalized people themselves to understand their perspectives and lives, not others. Transmasculine people are not the exception to that.

It just is incredibly telling that the texts consistently quoted at transmasc people to talk down to us about how we need to be properly educated on our place in transfeminism are never texts from transmasculine people themselves. It is self explanatory how you've reached the conclusion it is acceptable to demand transmasculine voices be decentered when you've built an understanding of us from texts which do not make the effort to involve us, but will still try to speak concretely about and for us.

You just sometimes encounter such prideful complicity in total ignorance to tmasc lives which will even myopically promote there are no transmasc texts in transfeminist academia in the first place.

and then you find out that the Reasons were actually Excuses and being mean was the entire point.

The baseline is that the definition end used by the coiner is utter bullshit. There's no world on which anyone is oppressed because of the "fear of men". Androphobia will never be a real axis of oppression and neither will misandry. Trans men are not and never will be oppressed on the basis of being men. Sure transmasculine people will face forms of transphobia that I often won't as a transfem- I want there to be a proper way to acknowledge that but I don't want to accept the faulty premise of oppression towards manhood.

The oppression of trans men is not an intersectional form of oppression and rather is the effects of transphobia and the compounding issue of misogyny that comes from having certain physical characteristics and anatomy. Having a uterus is an oppressed feature regardless of your AGAB and regardless of your SIG and regardless of your gender. A cis man who's intersex and has a uterus will be just as oppressed for the uterus as a cis woman. If you have reproductive anatomy that has the possibility of pregnancy you will be oppressed for it. That's not something unique to transmasculinity as all trans people are capable of having that situation and especially when womb transplants happen we'll see more transfems oppressed due to it. That's one example of another way that people claim transandrophobia manifests that just isn't accurate.

Intersectionality, as defined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is the way that every part of someone’s identity (including the parts that give them privilege) interact to create unique experiences of oppression and/or privilege. Just like trans women, trans men sit at an intersection of transphobia and misogyny—it’s just at a different place on the road. Misogyny related to body parts/reproductive capacity does affect us in unique ways; a trans woman with a functioning uterus (per your example) could not be raped and forcibly impregnated *for the purpose* of forcing her to detransition/keep her from ever transitioning, but that’s something that can and does happen to trans men more often than you might think. There are less “extreme” examples of this, but I’m using the clearest example I can think of as to how transphobia and misogyny form unique experiences for trans men and many other transmasculine people.

Also, you’re right that people aren’t oppressed solely for being men. I even think that trans men can experience male privilege (in a way that intersects with their transness). However, that does not mean that someone’s identity as a man cannot intersect with systematically oppressed aspects of their identity to create unique experiences of oppression. For trans men, this means that our identities as men intersects with transphobia. This takes the form of our gender being weaponized against us to erase and vilify us. Examples of this include painting trans men as *inherently* misogynistic for the crime of not being women (or “staying women” because this type of thing is used to pressure trans men out of transitioning), barring trans men from receiving gynaecological care via insurance bullshit if we legally change our gender or just outright not letting us make appointments if we pass, making out our medical transitions as disgusting and dangerous (once again to discourage transition + this also includes T being a controlled substance), and not allowing trans men to speak on so-called “women’s issues” that impact our daily lives because we are men—further erasing our voices. I could go on, but basically we are constantly placed in positions where we must either a) be silent or b) stop being seen as men in order to be heard, receive medical care, etc. Sometimes the consequences to this are social exclusion, but sometimes it’s death.

Yes, other trans people and intersex people can experience many similar things, but this collection of experiences affects trans men uniquely because we are trans men. Words that describe axes of oppression are always going to have some overlap with other people’s experiences because at the end of the day *everything* is just a collection of traits, but that doesn’t mean that the words to describe them have no value. Like, sometimes people say transmisogynistic shit to me because I have a collection of physical traits that make them assume I’m a transfem, but I’d never claim to face the collection of experiences that defines transmisogyny as a whole (especially because the impact of those experiences on me are not the same as they are on someone who is actually transfem), nor would I claim transmisogyny as a whole is a bad term.

For example, a white woman’s whiteness does intersect with her gender. She’s not oppressed for being white, but to say her experience is “just misogyny” instead of misogyny shaped by her white privilege implies that she experiences a pure form of misogyny (reinforcing white supremacy by positioning whiteness as the default state).

No, I don’t think this means white women need a unique word because white supremacy is not weaponized against white women to amplify the effects of patriarchy on them. However, if you look at groups of racialized men it becomes apparent that patriarchy, as a system, is weaponized against them to amplify the effects of white supremacy (for example, how black men are treated as especially violent because they are black + men). This happens in tandem with racialized men still having privilege from being men. The fact that patriarchy can bite itself in the ass and cause harm to men who do not fit the white, cis, perisex, able-bodied, etc ideal of manhood is not a novel concept—it’s a key part as to how patriarchy is enforced.

The baseline is that the definition end used by the coiner is utter bullshit. There's no world on which anyone is oppressed because of the "fear of men". Androphobia will never be a real axis of oppression and neither will misandry. Trans men are not and never will be oppressed on the basis of being men. Sure transmasculine people will face forms of transphobia that I often won't as a transfem- I want there to be a proper way to acknowledge that but I don't want to accept the faulty premise of oppression towards manhood.

The oppression of trans men is not an intersectional form of oppression and rather is the effects of transphobia and the compounding issue of misogyny that comes from having certain physical characteristics and anatomy. Having a uterus is an oppressed feature regardless of your AGAB and regardless of your SIG and regardless of your gender. A cis man who's intersex and has a uterus will be just as oppressed for the uterus as a cis woman. If you have reproductive anatomy that has the possibility of pregnancy you will be oppressed for it. That's not something unique to transmasculinity as all trans people are capable of having that situation and especially when womb transplants happen we'll see more transfems oppressed due to it. That's one example of another way that people claim transandrophobia manifests that just isn't accurate.

Intersectionality, as defined by Kimberlé Crenshaw, is the way that every part of someone’s identity (including the parts that give them privilege) interact to create unique experiences of oppression and/or privilege. Just like trans women, trans men sit at an intersection of transphobia and misogyny—it’s just at a different place on the road. Misogyny related to body parts/reproductive capacity does affect us in unique ways; a trans woman with a functioning uterus (per your example) could not be raped and forcibly impregnated *for the purpose* of forcing her to detransition/keep her from ever transitioning, but that’s something that can and does happen to trans men more often than you might think. There are less “extreme” examples of this, but I’m using the clearest example I can think of as to how transphobia and misogyny form unique experiences for trans men and many other transmasculine people.

Also, you’re right that people aren’t oppressed solely for being men. I even think that trans men can experience male privilege (in a way that intersects with their transness). However, that does not mean that someone’s identity as a man cannot intersect with systematically oppressed aspects of their identity to create unique experiences of oppression. For trans men, this means that our identities as men intersects with transphobia. This takes the form of our gender being weaponized against us to erase and vilify us. Examples of this include painting trans men as *inherently* misogynistic for the crime of not being women (or “staying women” because this type of thing is used to pressure trans men out of transitioning), barring trans men from receiving gynaecological care via insurance bullshit if we legally change our gender or just outright not letting us make appointments if we pass, making out our medical transitions as disgusting and dangerous (once again to discourage transition + this also includes T being a controlled substance), and not allowing trans men to speak on so-called “women’s issues” that impact our daily lives because we are men—further erasing our voices. I could go on, but basically we are constantly placed in positions where we must either a) be silent or b) stop being seen as men in order to be heard, receive medical care, etc. Sometimes the consequences to this are social exclusion, but sometimes it’s death.

Yes, other trans people and intersex people can experience many similar things, but this collection of experiences affects trans men uniquely because we are trans men. Words that describe axes of oppression are always going to have some overlap with other people’s experiences because at the end of the day *everything* is just a collection of traits, but that doesn’t mean that the words to describe them have no value. Like, sometimes people say transmisogynistic shit to me because I have a collection of physical traits that make them assume I’m a transfem, but I’d never claim to face the collection of experiences that defines transmisogyny as a whole (especially because the impact of those experiences on me are not the same as they are on someone who is actually transfem), nor would I claim transmisogyny as a whole is a bad term.

* i've had cis women coworkers out me to cis men (multiple times, leading to constant devaluation in the workplace), i've had cis women see me be sexually harassed by a cis man, then defend him, i've been forced to work through a shift while on my period with no access to tampons by my cis woman manager (as i was a year on T & was not expecting it). all of this happened as a passing man. my own mother is another conversation.