#transunitism

these are two entirely contradictory lines of logic, but they lead to the same conclusion. because the conclusion is the point. its a backformed theory of gender. people believe, for whatever reason, that "trans guys have it easier" is an objective fact, and then storytell an explanation for why that is that sounds right to them. and this isn't necessarily something that's done maliciously, which is key. its not about people twiddling their fingers and thinking about how to contribute to a massive conspiracy against transmascs. its about people just feeling, on a gut level, that trans guys must have it easier, by which they really mean, transmasculine suffering isn't socially visible, and it isn't natural for me to imagine it, therefore it must not exist; yet, trans suffering in general clearly exists, so there must be some reason that transmasculine suffering feels so abstract and immaterial to me and others.

I think about this image a lot. This is an image from the Aurat March (Women's March) in Karachi, Pakistan, on International Women's Day 2018. The women in the picture are Pakistani trans women, aka khwaja siras or hijras; one is a friend of a close friend of mine.

In the eyes of the Pakistani government and anthropologists, they're a "third gender." They're denied access to many resources that are available to cis women. Trans women in Pakistan didn't decide to be third-gendered; cis people force it on them whether they like it or not.

Western anthropologists are keen on seeing non-Western trans women as culturally constructed third genders, "neither male nor female," and often contrast them (a "legitimate" third gender accepted in its culture) with Western trans women (horrific parodies of female stereotypes).

There's a lot of smoke and mirrors and jargon used to obscure the fact that while each culture's trans women are treated as a single culturally constructed identity separate from all other trans women, cis women are treated as a universal category that can just be called "women."

Even though Pakistani aurat and German Frauen and Guatemalan mujer will generally lead extraordinarily different lives due to the differences in culture, they are universally recognized as women.

The transmisogynist will say, "Yes, but we can't ignore the way gender is culturally constructed, and hijras aren't trans women, they're a third gender. Now let's worry less about trans people and more about the rights of women in Burkina Faso."

In other words, to the transmisogynist, all cis women are women, and all trans women are something else.

"But Kat, you're not Indian or Pakistani. You're not a hijra or khwaja sira, why is this so important to you?"

Have you ever heard of the Neapolitan third gender "femminiello"? It's the term my moniker "The Femme in Yellow" is derived from, and yes, I'm Neapolitan. Shut up.

I'm going to tell you a little bit about the femminielli, and I want you to see if any of this sounds familiar. Femminielli are a third gender in Neapolitan culture of people assigned male at birth who have a feminine gender expression.

They are lauded and respected in the local culture, considered to be good omens and bringers of good luck. At festivals you'd bring a femminiello with you to go gambling, and often they would be brought in to give blessings to newborns. Noticing anything familiar yet?

Oh and also they were largely relegated to begging and sex work and were not allowed to be educated and many were homeless and lived in the back alleys of Naples, but you know we don't really like to mention that part because it sounds a lot less romantic and mystical.

And if you're sitting there, asking yourself why a an accurate description of femminiello sounds almost note for note like the same way hijras get described and talked about, then you can start to understand why that picture at the start of this post has so much meaning for me.

And you can also start to understand why I get so frustrated when I see other queer people buy into this fool notion that for some reason the transes from different cultures must never mix.

That friend I mentioned earlier is a white American trans woman. She spent years living in India, and as I recal the story the family she was staying with saw her as a white, foreign hijra and she was asked to use her magic hijra powers to bless the house she was staying in.

So when it comes to various cultural trans identities there are two ways we can look at this. We can look at things from a standpoint of expressed identity, in which case we have to preferentially choose to translate one word for the local word, or to leave it untranslated.

If we translate it, people will say we're artificially imposing an outside category (so long as it's not cis people, that's fine). If we don't, what we're implying, is that this concept doesn't exist in the target language, which suggests that it's fundamentally a different thing

A concrete example is that Serena Nanda in her 1990 and 2000 books, bent over backwards to say that Hijras are categorically NOT trans women. Lots of them are!

And Don Kulick bent over backwards in his 1998 book to say that travesti are categorically NOT trans women, even though some of the ones he cited were then and are now trans women.

The other option, is to look at practice, and talk about a community of practice of people who are AMAB, who wear women's clothing, take women's names, fulfill women's social roles, use women's language and mannerisms, etc WITHIN THEIR OWN CULTURAL CONTEXT.

This community of practice, whatever we want to call it - trans woman, hijra, transfeminine, femminiello, fairy, queen, to name just a few - can then be seen to CLEARLY be trans-national and trans-cultural in a way that is not clearly evident in the other way of looking at things.

And this is important, in my mind, because it is this axis of similarity that is serving as the basis for a growing transnational transgender rights movement, particularly in South Asia. It's why you see pictures like this one taken at the 2018 Aurat March in Karachi, Pakistan.

And it also groups rather than splits, pointing out not only points of continuity in the practices of western trans women and fa'afafines, but also between trans women in South Asia outside the hijra community, and members of the hijra community both trans women and not.

To be blunt, I'm not all that interested in the word trans woman, or the word hijra. I'm not interested in the word femminiello or the word fa'afafine.

I'm interested in the fact that when I visit India, and I meet hijras (or trans women, self-expressed) and I say I'm a trans woman, we suddenly sit together, talk about life, they ask to see American hormones and compare them to Indian hormones.

There is a shared community of practice that creates a bond between us that cis people don't have. That's not to say that we all have the exact same internal sense of self, but for the most part, we belong to the same community of practice based on life histories and behavior.

I think that's something cis people have absolutely missed - largely in an effort to artificially isolate trans women. This practice of arguing about whether a particular "third gender" label = trans women or not, also tends to artificially homogenize trans women as a group.

You see this in Kulick and Nanda, where if you read them, you could be forgiven for thinking all American trans women are white, middle class, middle-aged, and college-educated, who all follow rigid codes of behavior and surgical schedules prescribed by male physicians.

There are trans women who think of themselves as separate from cis women, as literally another kind of thing, there are trans women who think of themselves as coterminous with cis women, there are trans women who think of themselves as anything under the sun you want to imagine.

The problem is that historically, cis people have gone to tremendous lengths to destroy points of continuity in the transgender community (see everything I've cited and more), and particularly this has been an exercise in transmisogyny of grotesque levels.

The question is do you want to talk about culturally different ways of being trans, or do you want to try to create as many neatly-boxed third genders as you can to prop up transphobic theoretical frameworks? To date, people have done the latter. I'm interested in the former.

can we talk about this yet or are ya'll not ready.

P.S. ANYONE WHO TAKES THIS AS AN EXCUSE TO BE HORNY ABOUT MPREG GETS BLOCKED ON FUCKING SIGHT. GO GIVE A PREGNANT TRANS MAN $500 RIGHT FUCKING NOW.

Instead of saying all of our oppressions are equal, let's focus on how we are all oppressed uniquely and interconnectedly. Whether we are oppressed equally does not actually matter. It does nothing to curb the urge many of us have to tally our oppressions and compare them with other groups oppressions to see how they add up. Oppression is not a math equation. Anyone can say they experience something equal to, greater than, or less than another based on how they are counting. Saying everyone is oppressed equally is, ultimately, still taking a stance on this math.

We should instead be focusing on qualitative discussions of our oppressions. How are they similar? How are they different? How can they overlap? How can they intersect?

And importantly, we need to make sure the community allows everyone to speak about their experiences. This is ultimately the goal of transunity but I wanted to state this plainly for anyone who doesn't know about transunitism or what its for. I have seen every part of this community say they feel erased by other parts of this community. Trans men and transmasculine people, trans women and transfeminine people, nonbinary people of every transition experience, and intersex people (see footnote).

We ALL need to give space for other groups to speak and relate their experiences. Part of this is also listening to good faith critiques of transunitism and any other theory that seeks to represent all of us and being willing to adjust them to that criticism. No one is without blindspots and therefore no one could get it completely right first time.

I'm mentioning @nothorses since he was one of the minds behind transunitsm and actively talks about it. Id love to hear his and anyone else's thoughts on transunitism and ending the seemingly neverending infighting among the trans community.

Footnote: I included intersex people here because I believe they should be explicitly included in transunitism due to the connection and overlap intersexism has with transphobia. Intersexism is not mentioned in the transunitism manifesto (unless there is an updated one that I haven't seen) but it is included in the inactive transunity blog's header. If we are including intersex people, we should be as explicit and loud about it as we are about including every aspect of the trans community.

It's not "trans + androphobia" [trans fear-of-men]

It's "transandro + phobia" [fear of trans men]

Transandrophobia is actually a form of misogyny because Patriarchy doesn't hate trans men for being men, per se. Rather, Patriarchy hates trans men because it sees them as "male imposters" "appropriating" privileges that "don't belong to them," and thus need to be "put in their place" (i.e. reminded of their femininity, often by the threat of violence, especially corrective rape)

Transmisogyny and transandrophobia are both forms of misogyny, because they are both rooted in Patriarchy's hatred of the Feminine. The difference is that the former is a hatred of feminine gender expression, while the latter is a hatred of perceived "biological femininity"

They are two sides of the same coin; transfeminism benefits and ought to be practised by trans women, trans men, and enbies alike. This is the best for transunitism, a new wave of transfeminism that accounts for all forms of transphobia