trans women—i.e. males that are feminized and thus are approximately female do experience violence due to their feminization. but it is not one-to-one with violence against female people—it is a result of downstream effects of misogyny.

that’s the issue with the concept of “transmisogyny” as it was coined in serano’s “whipping girl,” rather than conceptualizing transmisogyny as the downstream, natural consequence of a society that denigrates femaleness (and thus created femininity to as a tool to do just that), the theorem asserts that femininity itself, some abstract concept of “womanhood,” is actually an oppressed characteristic.

you’ll find that femaleness is, to these people, an incidental trait, if extant at all. if you ask them “why have female people, people with vaginas, specifically, been oppressed, nearly universally throughout history?” they probably won’t have an answer, they don’t know—it’s male privilege in action, really, to be so oblivious to misogyny that you miss the origin entirely. somehow they don’t understand the irony of the idea that the ~most vulnerable women~ are actually feminized males.

it is a well known phenomenon that, in the absence of female people to subordinate, male people will [often sexually] subordinate other males—think about the prison system, and sex-segregated societies and institutions. possibly more relevantly, even homosexual men will create sexual and perceptively gendered hierarchies upon who does and doesn't do the penetration.

this is transmisogyny, albeit a less potent version of it—policing the boundaries of gender and specifically manhood is a function of the patriarchy. males are definitely targeted for transgressing the ‘gender binary’ (or, as the queer theorists would say, they experience oppositional sexism)—but gender and especially femininity were constructed to police female existence and female bodies.

they’ve worked the entire thing backwards. “people with vaginas are oppressed because they’re associated with femininity,” when in reality, femininity is, itself subjugative due to it’s construction in relation to femaleness. it’s even gone full circle—they’ll posit that a privileged feature of “transmisogyny-exemption” is the freedom from being directly targeted by transmisogyny, and only experiencing it’s downstream effects. when, as i’ve established, transmisogyny itself is the downstream.

experiencing transmisogyny is a male experience, growing up transmisogynized is a form of male socialization. they know this, subconsciously. they’ve accidentally created the paradox of “sex-based misogyny doesn’t actually exist, but only people assigned male can experience transmisogyny”.

ii.

this part is less organized, but, the mental bandwidth necessary to uphold these beliefs—“males are actually the most oppressed under the sex-class system”—is massive. if you have any semblance of critical thinking skills, if you actually understand feminism, patriarchy, and male supremacy, you, undeniably, will doubt it. you need to constantly justify yourself to yourself, not just to other people (but other people matter too).

it creates a necessity for backwards, circular logic. “trans women are female because of their identity as female,” “you not seeing me as a woman is actually proof of the fact that i am the most female because it’s transmisogynistic which is 98372x worse than just misogyny”.

i believe this is why we also get nonsensical rhetoric like: “…transmascs are raping/babytrapping transfems and relieving themselves of reproductive abuse by offloading it onto marginalized women*, who will be relegated to childrearing should a pregnancy occur…”

aside from it being a masterclass in wokeified malespeak, it’s also a very exemplary, and logical line of thinking here—when faced with a female reproductive rights issue that ~the most oppressed women~ will never struggle against (a concept that contradicts most transfeminist principle), it creates matter in a vacuum by, basically, making shit up. they do this all the time—“trans men are abusing and killing and raping trans women,” “trans men are more prone to violence due to emasculation,” “trans men are sexually harassing trans women on grindr for having t4t in bio,” et cetera.

if trans men were oppressing trans women on the basis of their sex, these things probably would be happening. but they aren’t—at least not at rates suggestive of a systematic issue—yet questioning that will cause a collapse in their politics, so it’s much easier to believe made up, bullshit theoreticals than overhaul your entire system of understanding your experiences.

and beyond that, we actually see a lot of the inverse: trans women who pressure transmascs into vaginal sex in st4t relationships, trans women who refuse to use condoms with or who ejaculate inside of transmascs without consent, trans women who campaign against tm4tms by calling them transmisogynistic or transphobic. and the only trans-on-trans murder i know of personally is that of a trans man—ray muscat—who was murdered by his trans girlfriend in a double homicide-suicide (a type of crime almost always, if not exclusively, perpetrated by males).

if the theory is half-coherent (in the terms of their backwards logic), and validates a certain self- and worldview, then empirical evidence doesn't matter, contradictions don't matter.

subsequently, it creates the perfect set up for the misogynistic abuse of female trans people. they perpetuate misogynistic violence within the trans community in a similar pattern to any other marginalized male—transmisogyny is simultaneously used as an excuse and a silencer.

it’s no different from black cis men who claim misogynoir doesn’t exist, because they believe black men are ~the most hated ever~, who then proceed to leverage the collective black fear of demonization and the judicial system to abuse with impunity.