Gender Traitor Transexual Theyfab

i wouldn't be surprised if its also common for this to happen with estrogen, i found one news story on a trans woman experiencing this, but looking it up there seems to be a LOT of cases of this happening with testosterone. which makes me suspect people feel empowered to do this with T in particular because of its criminalized status. regardless, i do not see this brought up much! and i think we should discuss it more, at the very least to prepare people in case they experience this, so they know how to handle the situation.

examples below the cut for length:

Any one of these could be ignorance/accidents, but these each happened multiple times from 3 locations.

like if you are marginalized it is in your own self-interest to interrogate and deconstruct the cultural narratives that position you as subnormal. this is what starts a lot of queer people on wanting to reform the world into something more compassionate and egalitarian.

Misogyny is not just prejudice experienced by a woman. It is not simply something that happens TO a woman. It has nothing to do with the woman. It’s about the misogynist.

Bigotry is not determined or defined by the target of that bigotry. The bigotry is stored in the bigot.

Misogynists will be misogynistic towards any person they associate with femininity, including cisgender men.

When a misogynist cis man tears another man down for liking something he thinks is girly, he is still being misogynistic.

A cis male coach telling his cis male student he runs like a girl is being misogynistic.

A cis woman punishing her son for wanting a “girl” toy or policing her boyfriend’s hygiene habits and interests for anything she considers emasculating, is being misogynistic!

When a woman gets in a car accident and is injured more severely because the safety testing on that car was only done using crash test dummies and models based on men, she’s experiencing misogyny.

When the medication she takes for her injuries doesn’t work right or has unexpected side effects because it was only tested on men, she’s experiencing misogyny.

When the tools she uses at work that are the wrong shape for her hands, and the jumpsuit that’s part of her uniform which she has to take off completely to use the bathroom, and all the spaces she moves through and everything within them are designed with the assumption that an average male body is the only body that matters— she is experiencing misogyny.

Misogyny is the belief that women are inherently inferior, and the systems and institutions built around that belief. It can be experienced by anyone, and anyone is capable of having misogynistic beliefs and doing misogynistic things.

Bigotry is not about the target. It’s about the bigot, and what the bigot believes, and the way those bigoted beliefs have shaped our world.

I don’t care what race gender or sexuality you are, you were raised with racist, sexist, homophobic beliefs. Because it’s literally impossible not to be.

I dont think I have ever let it affect my care. I hope I never have, and its my responsibility to keep interrogating my judgements and decisions towards my patients to make sure I never do.

It means that trying to assign any kind of "male privilege" to ANY category of trans people will never truly be fruitful, because the concept of "male privilege" was created by cisgender women to discuss cisgender men under cisgender gender dynamics without the experiences of transgender people in mind.

I think we can all agree that transgender women, transgender men, and nonbinary people are NOT cisgender men.

Even when we are discussing trans people who are externally perceived as / assumed to be cisgender men within society because they are stealth, closeted, or non-cis passing — those trans people are experiencing something conditional that can be stripped from them the moment anyone in a position to harm them finds out they are trans.

I think we can all agree that being misgendered and/or having to hide a part of yourself so you do not get hate crimed and/or lose employment or benefits or housing, etc. is NOT an exercising of privilege.

Even when we are discussing misogyny, an important and longstanding part of feminist discussion on misogyny is the fact that everyone is capable of being misogynistic. Misogyny is not stored in the assigned sex or gender identity. We all live in a patriarchal society, NO ONE is immune from internalizing misogynistic, patriarchal worldviews and acting upon them.

I think we can all agree that there is no transgender person who is incapable of being misogynistic, because there is no person in general who is incapable of being misogynistic.

To act as though privilege and bigotry are stored in a sex assignment or gender identity is to be gender/sex essentialist.

I often compare disability/class/age-based eugenics to sex-selective abortion. Banning sex-selective abortion does not solve the problem; it just violates people's bodily autonomy, builds parental resentment of their children, and compounds the misogyny that leads to the demand for sex-selective abortion in the first place.

People practice sex-selective abortion because having a child AMAB is more beneficial to the parents' social and economic standing than having a child AFAB. The solution to that problem has to be changing those social and economic conditions so that a child's gender or AGAB has no bearing on their parents' social and economic standing -- so that sex-selective abortion is no longer a rational choice in response to the parents' circumstances.

And the only way to prevent disability-selective abortion is to make disabled people so socially and economically equal to abled people that disability-selective abortion no longer looks like a rational choice.

The only way to prevent economic/class eugenics is economic equality. The only way to prevent age/status-based eugenics is social equality.

This is the main impetus that drove me to socialism. I used to be more of a center-left social democrat; I figured "Complete economic equality would be nice, but it's a pipe dream; the important thing is that everyone. It doesn't really matter if the CEO is richer than everyone else, as long as no one is hungry or homeless. Besides, it's kind of 'fair' in a way for people with more specialized/demanding jobs to be compensated more."

But the thing is, as long as inequality exists, parents will want their children to rise to the top of the hierarchy. As long as inequality exists, parents will want to prevent their children from falling lower in the hierarchy. As long as inequality exists, parents will do anything to coerce and pressure and abuse and modify their children to give them a "competitive edge."

And as long as inequality exists, and certain physical/cognitive traits correlate with "success," choosing children with those "successful" traits will be a rational choice.

Americans in disability liberation discussions tend to blame our country's ableism on our lack of social safety nets and universal healthcare... but countries with robust social safety nets are just as ableist as we are, sometimes more so. The abortion rate for fetuses with Down Syndrome is higher in Iceland than in the U.S., even though an Icelandic child with Down Syndrome would have access to healthcare. Iceland, while deeply flawed, has a decent enough social safety net that someone born with Down Syndrome would probably not starve or be homeless. But they would be at the bottom of the social hierarchy. There is still a social hierarchy. Eugenics is still a rational choice. Changing that behavior requires changing the social hierarchy that values so-called "general intelligence" and devalues disabled people.

The same is true of other kinds of eugenics -- as long as raising children is a net financial loss for families, avoiding having children "you can't afford" will remain a rational choice. As long as having children means a decrease in the birthing parent's educational or professional opportunities, people will avoid giving birth to children they "can't afford."

I'm not gonna give them the benefit of pretending to be stupid, they are fully aware transandrophobia, and the fight to destroy it, has nothing to do with MRAs or the incel movement. They know the goals are different, they know trans men face legitimate discrimination. They fucking know these things aren't the same, it's not a genuine belief they hold because they are stupid but they aren't THAT fucking stupid. They know.

They are comparing them maliciously and we need to, genuinely, stop entertaining this distraction. We need to stop writing up big posts pointing out the differences between these movements because they know they aren't the same. We need to stop clarifying the differences because they genuinely don't need to be taught, they know, they just want to catch you up in semantics instead of talking about the actual point. Same as the people who claim trans activism is the same as pedophilia defending or Mysogny.

Those groups don't genuinely believe that, they just like to stop you up and distract you so you don't call them out for whatever they are doing to hurt you with said accusation or stop you from talking about it because you're too busy proving trans rights activism that centers trans men, or trans men's issues in general, are not the same as men's rights activism. They know they aren't the same, they know they don't have the same views, they are just trying to make you stumble to make you look stupid or score some Internet points. It's catchy and easy to throw out a bullshit accusation but it's hard to disprove it without writing an essay about the differences. That's why they do it, it's how bigots attempt to debate or how conspiracy theorists make shit up, they expect you to take the burden of proving them wrong when they need to prove why they say that on sound reasoning. They don't have to prove their beliefs to other people who already hate the group, they aren't even putting in the effort to source their accusations, so don't put in the full effort to disprove them. Just look at them and say " I'm not going to entertain baseless accusations when we both know you don't genuinely believe that.".