#julia serano

Of course, as a savvy political operative, you would also intuitively understand that simply uncovering or inventing a sex scandal is not necessarily enough. You also need the charges to “stick” to your opponent. If they are widely considered to be a normal, respectable, upstanding member of the community, then voters might have a hard time believing the accusation is true without a preponderance of evidence, and even then, they might not be convinced. In contrast, if your opponent was… I don’t know, let’s say me, then you might feel fairly confident that at least some voters would accept the sex scandal at face value, even if the evidence is rather flimsy. Why is that? Well, as we discussed with regards to the Unmarked/Marked mindset, accusations and attributions tend to “stick” better to people who are marked relative to their unmarked counterparts. Not only am I marked, but people are likely to view me as “marked by sex” in a number of different ways: for being female, bisexual, and/or transgender, not to mention the fact that I regularly write about sexuality, including sharing some of my own past sexual experiences—talk about letting my “sex” show!

Thus, while any person can theoretically be sexualized in a number of ways, in practice, some individuals are significantly more susceptible to sexualization than others. In particular, marked groups, especially those that are widely stigmatized, are especially prone to sexualization.

and i don’t really know what to think of it?

so, does julia serano not understand gender as a social construct or especially sex as a social construct? this kind of confuses me, because a lot of transfeminists that build on serano’s work tend to see both gender and sex as constructed, so how do they reconcile this?

i don’t think the part about hormonal predispositions being real is untrue, but serano seems to characterise gender and “biological sex” as not constructed, but instead exaggerated, so for instance, it seems like she would say that it is bad to claim that “all women are more emotional” but she would say that “women in general are more emotional” for instance, where she acknowledges that there is not universality, but at no point in this does she question the way that emotionality is typically operationalised in misogynistic ways? like earlier she talks about crying more and not being able to stop after going on HRT, and this is the stereotypical way to operationalise emotion, as a woman sniffling, as opposed to a man getting angry at a sports game or smth. like, she abides by the patriarchal metrics of something like emotion, if that makes sense? she also doesn’t question the androcentrism in operationalising “strength” as muscle mass and brute force (presumably, as she links her becoming “weaker” to going on E). she also states that typical women are “feminine” and typical men are “masculine” and posits “masculine women” and “feminine men” as outliers. and by viewing it this way, she seems to legitimise and naturalise the categories of male and female, whereas transfeminists seem to understand those categories as inherently the product of patriarchy, in the sense argued by Monique Wittig. I’ve also heard of sexgender described as a set of labour relations, for example, by transfeminists.

For me, the question of why I am transsexual has always been a source of shame and self-loathing... Like most people, I assumed that it was better to be cissexual. Eventually I realized that dwelling on "why" was a pointless endeavor--the fact is that I am transsexual and I exist, and there is no legitimate reason why I should feel inferior to a cissexual because of that.

The question, "Why do transsexuals exist?" is not a matter of pure curiosity, but rather an act of nonacceptance, as it invariably occurs in the absence of asking the reciprocal question: "Why do cissexuals exist?" The unceasing search to uncover the cause of transsexuality is designed to keep the transsexual gender identities in a perpetually questionable state, thereby ensuring cissexual gender identities continue to be unquestionable

Julia Serano in her article "What Is Transmisogyny?" May 24, 2021 [ here ]

"Part of why I’m writing this now is that I’ve seen the term increasingly debated online lately. These debates are often centered on the more recent terms TMA (transmisogyny affected) and TME (transmisogyny exempt), which I did not coin. I have no objections to TMA and TME per se — they seem like potentially useful non-binary- and non-identity-based ways of discussing the phenomenon. But I’m admittedly not familiar with everything that others are saying or claiming under this newer rubric, so there may potentially be some points of disagreement. I do know that some of these debates relate to who precisely is impacted by transmisogyny and who is not — I share some of my thoughts on these matters in the follow up pieces listed below (especially the first two)."

She then links several of her pieces - I've included the first two mentioned as she specifically references them.

The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies entry for "Transmisogyny" - 2021 [ here ]

Articulating Trans-Misogyny - 2016 [ here ]

So Serano is familiar with the terms TMA and TME and sees their potential for use, but is not familiar enough to make a definitive statement on their effectiveness.

Then how can we find what Serano's explicit thoughts are on who exactly is affected by transmisogyny? We read her articles.

At the end of The SAGE Encyclopedia of Trans Studies entry for Transmisogyny, under the section "Interpretations and Critiques of Transmisogyny" Serano makes it relatively clear that just about anyone can be affected by transmisogyny depending on how they are being perceived.

"As the term has caught on, transmisogyny has increasingly been used as shorthand for any prejudice expressed towards trans women regardless of content. However, while trans women are certainly targets of transmisogyny, any person who is perceived as, or presumed to be, a feminine or feminized "male" may be subject to these same derogatory, pathologizing, and sexualizing attitudes (albeit to varying extents).

So in Julia Serano's own words anyone who is perceived to be at the intersection of femininity and "male" identity can be affected by transmisogyny. (Male is in quotes because it is referring to a narrow social perception, not the material reality of someone's personal identity.) This definition broadly includes groups of people often considered TME, for example, trans men who are non-cis passing or GNC and women of color who experience the racialized masculinization of their genders, because both of those groups of people sit at intersections of femininity and perceived male identity. Remember this is about defining how people are treated and perceived within a sexist, transphobic society, and not based on their actual personal identities.

Serano continues:

"Some have critiqued transmisogyny for downplaying the role that misogyny plays in policing trans male/masculine identities. While said misogyny undoubtably occurs, it may take on different forms—for example, a trans man may be perceived as, and ridiculed for, being a feminine man (which undoubtedly falls under the umbrella of transmisogyny described here), or alternatively, he may be invalidated as a "woman pretending to be a man" (which comes with a very different set of sexist assumptions and social meanings)."

So, again, in Julia Serano's own words within the most official definition of transmisogyny to exist, trans men can be affected by transmisogyny and can have experiences that undoubtedly, definitionally fall under the umbrella of transmisogyny.

(Sidebar, but in the same original Medium article at the beginning of this post, Serano even suggests that further language may be necessary for trans people who sit at different intersections of misogyny/sexism/transphobia than the ones transmisogyny covers. I wonder what people engaging in conversations around the word "transandrophobia" are attempting to define...? 🤔)

Serano ends the article by saying:

"Rather than view transmisogyny as a "single issue" unto itself, it should be recognized as a broad category of sexist attitudes and sentiments that intersect with other social forces and that may play out in various ways in different individuals lives"

So if anyone can be affected by the category of broader sexist attitudes and sentiments that encompass the concept of transmisogyny, how can someone actually be TME? Especially when Julia Serano herself indirectly opposes most definitions of "transmisogyny exempt" in her own official definition of transmisogyny.

The answer is, of course, no one is really TME because based on Julia Serano's own definitions, who is or isn't affected by transmisogyny is dependent on the transmisogynist, on the bigot, on society, on sexist institutions, NOT on the individual's personal identity or relationship to a social in-group.

Just to really drive it home that TMA and TME are functionally useless within Serano's own articulation of transmisogyny, let's also take a look at Articulating Trans-Misogyny too.

"I used the term [ transmisogyny ] to describe how the existence of societal misogyny/tradtional sexism greatly informs how people perceive, interpret, or treat gender-variant people who seemingly "want to be female" or "want to be feminine" (regardless of their actual identity). However, many people nowadays use the word "trans-misogyny" in an identity based manner to refer to any and all forms of discrimination targeting trans women. According to this latter usage, some would argue that people who identify as men, or male crossdressers, or drag queens, cannot possibly experience trans-misogyny—a close reading of Whipping Girl will reveal that I very much disagree with this premise."

So transmisogyny, according to Serano, is NOT an all encompassing term for any and all forms of discrimination against trans women, but is as previously discussed a term to describe a set of sexist and discriminatory attitudes and sentiments than impacts a large category of individuals—including, but not limited to, trans women, trans men, drag queens, male crossdressers, and just men in general based on Serano's wording.

This is mostly just tangential, but she later goes on to describe how if she had known Whipping Girl would come to be known as "The Transgender Book" and would be treated with such definitive authority, she would have written it differently. It is filled with personal anecdotes that she identifies as full of privilege and as results of frustrations within her own local queer community. She directly states that it has little to offer when it comes to discussions on other trans identities or trans individuals who exist outside of her own privileges.

In her own words "for better or worse, it is what it is: the perspective of one individual trans woman situated in a particular time and place".

So, to recap:

The concept of transmisogyny is meant to define a broad category of sexist attitudes and sentiments that is not limited to impacting just one identity, but rather a wide variety of individuals ranging an entire spectrum of identities and experiences within a sexist society.

It was a concept proposed by one relatively privileged trans woman, in a relatively privileged environment, and inherently does not seek to engage with other intersecting forms of marginalization.

The author explicitly disagrees with the pop culture misconception of her terminology because defines out groups of people that her words were initially meant to include and leads to a reductive understanding of her original work. The author also suggests that more work and language may be required to cover areas of experience that her ideas and terminology do not reach.

Ultimately I think out of anybody on this planet, Julia Serano has defined transmisogyny the most extensively and if we're going to yell "Read Whipping Girl! Read Whipping Girl!" from the high heavens all the time, we need to also consider her words in years more recent than 2007.

Out early on Patreon!