While reading this, I beg that people keep my last post about this subject in mind. I do not think Julia Serano was a bad person, or should not have written her book. But I highly doubt after this post anyone will be accusing me of being soft on whipping Girl. Because on this episode of Lily talks shit about whipping girl, it is finally time to tackle the big one. And the conclusions I am going to draw are damning.
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.
A lot of people believe it is psyops driving a lot of trans infighting. I think it is simply a matter of prejudice born of bad ideas taken to their logical end.
I really dislike the whole "- their expressions of maleness and masculinity themselves are not target of ridicule–to do so would require one to question masculinity in itself", I feel like it really misses a key point.
Masculinity and femininity aren't the source of "men superior, women inferior" (misogyny). Pericis men arent considered superior because they're masculine, they're considered superior *because* they're pericis men. Masculinity is more of a byproduct as far as I understand, things associated with men are masculine, and because men are "superior", masculinity on them shows off that "superiority". Femininity is hated because people hate women, and femininity is associated with women, and thus "inferior".
But in the misogynistic patriarchal ideal, women are *meant* to be inferior, so to be feminine. Masculinity on women/people seen as women being ridiculed doesn't mean "masculinity with manhood isnt superior", it means "masculinity marks superiority when it is displayed by men, Because it is displayed by men and men are superior, so masculinity in women is deviancy from their patriarchal role, and as such hated". Like it really irks me that the statement basically says "if society targeted masculinity in people who aren't men it means that they don't think masculinity is superior", because, again, masculinity is superior *because* it is of men, not the other way around.
Like, okay, Im gonna be more rude here, but masculinity being ridiculed on women/people perceived as women is not a "loophole" of the patriarchy, it's a fucking feature! Like you got half the population being inferior to the other half, and things associated with that inferior half are inferior, so when you see someone from that inferior half doing things associated with superiority you're not like "oh finally they came to their senses and realized they should be like us let me welcome them to the superior half", no you're fucking like "woah wait a second, you're meant to be ontologically inferior, we need that to keep the system going, go back in your fucking box, the reason Im superior is that you are inferior, so you can't ever be on the same level as me otherwise I lose my superiority"
So no, it is not questioning masculinity, because by the very word, masculinity is meant for men, so saying it isnt for women is definitely not contradicting that.
I obviously need to point out how this whole framework ignores blatantly trans women who are also men and trans men who are also women, ignores intersex people who arent necessarily seen as "women/men", and it paints a whole amount of the oppression on "women wearing men's clothing and men wearing women's clothing", while ignoring that 1. Some intersex people can be seen as either regardless of gender (an intersex man wearing masculine clothing can be seen as a woman in masc clothing and viceversa) (some intersex people are strictly seen as "other" and both masculinity and femininity is ridiculed on them), 2. Non binary people can be perceived as either regardless of gender (the public doesn't car if you're genderless or multigender or xenogender) (androgynous non binary people can be seen as "other" as well or seen as a man/woman depending on what is convenient to discriminate against) (aka you perceive an androgynous looking person, you cant tell if they're "male or female" but since you see them as queer, you choose to perceive them as men if they're wearing fem clothing/viceversa to be transphobic), 3. Some binary trans people and passing binary trans people can be seen as that regardless of their transition direction (aka binary trans woman who passes as a woman wearing masculine clothing being ridiculed for masculinity on a woman and binary trans men who passes as a men wearing feminine clothing being ridiculed for femininity on a man) (this goes completely ignored, like gender non conforming trans people dont exist) (but then again I did see at least a few people claiming that you're gnc if your gender expression is opposite of your 'agab' regardless of your gender so maybe the concept of gnc people is too hard to grasp)
^ this with the assumption that the person perceiving you is a stranger that doesn't know anything about you, because of course it gets a hell of a lot more complex when you consider the various degrees of how much someone knows you (like for example a feminine non binary person perceived as a woman by strangers may not face transphobia by people who think they're a cis woman, but if they're openly non binary like using gender neutral terms of god forbid gender neutral pronouns or neopronouns, they're gonna face transphobia no matter if people think their presentation is the "right" one or not)
Anyway would love to hear your thoughts on this op, I wanted to add my perspective but I want to understand how others see it and if I may have misinterpreted or said something wrong
I think you're the first person I've seen so clearly articulate why the "expressions of maleness and masculinity [on people perceived to be women] themselves are not target of ridicule" idea is incorrect.
Thank you.
You're welcome! I did struggle a bit to articulate it, but the claim that the patriarchy favours masculinity regardless of gender, instead of favouring conforming to gender roles, is one I ended up thinking a lot about to be able to tell why it didnt sound right. Like the idea that the patriarchy wants everyone to be men/masculine, so rewards and welcomes people perceived as women to manhood/masculinity literally goes against the principle of oppositional sexism, which Julia Serano herself coined.
"Traditional sexism is the assumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior to, or less legitimate than, maleness and masculinity. Oppositional sexism is the assumption that male and female are mutually exclusive categories, each possessing a distinct set of attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires (akin to the gender binary described above)."
This is taken from an article of her substack from 2024 (A “Gender Critical” and “TERF” Primer, for readers trying to make sense of “feminists versus transgender activists” debates [link])
Ill also quote the following sentence because it does recognize the way masculinity is not rewarded in women
Together, these two forms of sexism create the double bind that feminists have long described, where if a woman behaves in ways that are coded as masculine (e.g., being assertive or aggressive) she will be disparaged due to oppositional sexism, but if she behaves femininely, she will not be taken seriously due to traditional sexism.
In this older article, from 2021, she restates the definition of oppositional sexism in a way I think says exactly why the idea of people perceived as women being encouraged/rewarded for being masculine doesn't make sense. (What is transmisogyny [link])
The basic argument I made in Whipping Girl goes something like this: What feminists have long called “sexism” actually consists of two forces. There’s “traditional sexism,” which is the notion that femaleness and femininity are inferior to, or less legitimate than, maleness and masculinity. But in order to maintain that hierarchy, there also needs to be a way to discourage people from blurring or traversing these distinctions. I called that force “oppositional sexism” and defined it as “the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories, each possessing a unique and nonoverlapping set of attributes, aptitudes, abilities, and desires.” In other words, transphobia (as well as homophobia) stem from oppositional sexism.
I cant say it in a way that's more clear than how she did. "In order to mantain that hierarchy [traditional sexism], there also needs to ve a way to discourage people from blurring or traversing these distinctions." A society with traditional sexism and no oppositional sexism *might* have the logic of "masculinity is better so everyone should be masculine", but I think that also falls apart because then what makes femininity inferior if it's not associated with women? If pericis women were pushed to be masculine and if that alone were enough to put them at the same level pericis men, then the hierarchy would fall over immediately. A hierarchy needs someone on the higher level and someone on the lower level; sexism poses a hierarchy where pericis manhood is superior and pericis womanhood is inferior, with everything falling outside of this being even lower on the hierarchy, so to put pericis men above, pericis women need to be below.
As the definition itself says "the belief that female and male are rigid, mutually exclusive categories", manhood and womanhood are defined as opposites of each other. (which btw, the fact that this is recognized as being sexism and a feature of the patriarchy really should mean that as we deconstruct it, people should be more accepting towards multigender manwomen identities and more comfortable with non binary identities that have zero ties to the binary but I digress)
Which is all rambling for manhood and masculinity are only liked on people society thinks should have them, which are white pericis men, because more often than not Black pericis men get punished for being too masculine too and there's a whole conversation to be had on how a view of the patriarchy that doesn't consider how Black people have been historically classified as "non men" and "non women" and so how it all articulates into and from white supremacy. Furthermore expressions of manhood and masculinity that arent white are often not seen as masculine, see how people treat Indigenous men Asian men and also Jewish men. This is a much larger conversation, one that I dont have the knowledge to articulate and that people of colour have *been* having, so I do think my discussion is very incomplete and that this is important to point out
