If transfeminism is going to base its theory off Black, intersectional feminism, we do actually have to discuss and acknowledge trans men's experiences with gender and oppression in the same ways Black feminists have been acknowledging and discussing Black men's experiences with gender and oppression for decades.
You can't just take the words of Black women that are convenient for you and drop the rest. When bell hooks said Feminism Is For Everybody did you actually internalize that or what?
Transfeminism is not a meta-narrative, it is an analytic technology meant to provide a materialist analysis to a specific intersection: transmisogynized people. It is not the job of transfeminism or transfeminists to account for the experiences of TME people; there are other models for that.
It is not fair to ask us to explain your experiences for you: use feminism correctly (meaning actually understand how intersectionality works, so not transandrophobia) to do your own knowledge production, and listen to ours.
The greater vehicle kind of feminism associated with bell hooks is also an analytic technology designed to fit a specific purpose: to defend the place of feminisms in society and show how the abolition of patriarchy is widely beneficial. It does not mean that feminism should center people who benefit from and thus uphold patriarchy. Feminism as a political project can benefit everyone, but it is not meant to help uplift everyone's knowledge production equally. Men already have dominant knowledge production.
Once again we have men barging into women's theoretical traditions and going "why aren't you making this about meeeeeee". Transfeminism is not about you. Men are prioritized, favored and rewarded, and among trans people this means trans men. Thus, acknowledging, being generally aware of and taking seriously trans men's experiences and problems is what we've been doing; it is the background radiation of trans issues in a way that trans women's issues are not.
This is literally a non-issue: a problem trans discourse doesn't have and one that transfeminism is not designed to solve anyways. Also read the Combahee River Collective Statement.
"Do your own work but not the work you've already done because I don't like it because despite claiming to be a communist who claims to value materialist analysis I get uncomfortable when people analyze their own material reality when it challenges my simplistic, cis binary-centric understanding of the gender binary and oppression."
Did I get that right?
It was Audre Lorde who said "For the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house. They may allow us to temporarily beat him at his own game, but they will never enable us to bring about genuine change."
In the discussion on trans oppression and liberation, the master's tools are the insistence that trans people slot neatly into cis-based gender dynamics. Insisting that TRANSGENDER men, just by virtue of existing as men, benefit from and uphold patriarchy is you trying to temporarily beat the master at his [ or in this case "her", since we're talking about building off a foundationally cis woman built framework of oppression ] own game.
It absolutely benefits you as a trans woman to use oppositional sexism to insist that your oppression is parallel to that of cis women and that subsequently trans men's positions in society must parallel cis men's. It gives you the spot at the feminist table that you do deserve to have..... in an underhanded way that throws other trans people under the bus and bars us from conversations on gendered oppression despite the fact that ALL transphobia experienced by ALL trans people boils down to being gender identity based oppression.
Is the feminist movement NOT founded on gender identity based liberation at its core? Is that, at the very least, not ALLIED with the rest of the trans community in a meaningful way where both might mutually benefit from a deeper understanding and analysis of gender that does include talking about masculinity and manhood and the social construction of gender as a whole?
It's not about centering men, you sound like the truscum and transmeds that used to fearmonger about how acknowledging nonbinary people will be the death of binary trans liberation in the 2010's.
It's about bare minimum just acknowledging that manhood is an important construct in the conversation on gender liberation and that marginalized manhood is an important vehicle for discussing and dismantling gendered systems of oppression too. It's about imagining gendered oppression more complexly than woman hurt/man harm. It's about finally fucking throwing the master's tools out the gd window. And that's NOT what has been done. At all.
Talking about the gendered oppression of trans men IN ADDITION TO - not above, not before, not centred, but just alongside all other trans experiences is vital to our broader understandings of gendered oppression within transfeminist and broader feminist discussions precisely because it throws a wrench in cis-centered understandings of gendered oppression.
If you can't see that you're dogshit at material analysis.
You're telling us to "do the work" and then get pissed off when we don't do it the way you want us to but you don't want to do the work yourself but we're still always doing it wrong no matter what, so what the fuck should we all do then? What's your solution?
Honestly I'm a little obsessed with this.
"Make your own theory, don't expect us to do it for you"
"Okay, we made our own theory and we call it transandropho-"
"NO, you have to do it the way I tell you"
Like. If that doesn't sum up the revolving door that is the main problem I don't know what does. It's always "make your own post" and "make your own theory" until we do and it gains traction and then it becomes "shut up about this because you didn't do it the way I wanted you to" and "this is inherently lesser importance than anything I go through so why waste time talking about your problems when you should be talking about mine".
Like I get "listen to trans women" and "trust us to make theory that will support you" and I say yes, the trans woman who taught me transgender political theory grouped it all under transmisogyny because every transgender person experiences an intersection of transphobia and misogyny regardless of their actual gender and I don't disagree with her so that's my understanding, and then it becomes "you're stealing our theory and words to talk about yourself, you rely too much on women to help you, go make your own" so then I do make my own posts going back to black feminism and black transfeminism that specifically mentions us and then I get "this theory makes you functionally identical to MRAs and other politically violent men" and "by centering [trans] men you are antifeminist and actively hate women and especially trans women" and "follow our lead and listen to us and talk about our problems and stop focusing so much on yourself" and in the mean time the theory is "trans men get raped and kill themselves a lot, let's examine why this happens and see if we can prevent these tragedies".
It just goes round and round and round in circles.
"It is not the job of transfeminists or transfeminism to account for the experiences of TME people; there are other models for that."
And what exactly are these other models in feminism actually account for trans men's experiences as trans men? Oh wait, you think trans men's only struggles are identical to cis women's, the model you're thinking of is cisfeminism, which doesn't account for us. Way to miss the entire point of the post and speak over people you should have solidarity with.
Anyway, it is the job of ANYONE dedicated to gender liberation to have solidarity with and account for and listen to the other marginalized genders in their community. Not prioritize, just listen and amplify suppressed voices.
Intersectionality is not just dependent on intersecting identities, it's also time and location dependant, it changes. You need to uplift who needs uplifting when the system is failing them, not attempt to make set in stone parameters for an oppression hierarchy.
Minerva when transfeminism includes trans people who aren't women:
Literally where did the idea of "Transfeminism […] is an analytic technology meant to provide a materialist analysis to a specific intersection: transmisogynized people" even come from. Why do so many hear trans and interpret it as trans women and transfems. What do you mean TRANSfeminism isn't about or for TRANS men. It's literally in the name
