trans unity now

Please answer this poll in accordance with your own personal definition of what you think transfeminism should be, rather than what transfeminism currently is or how others have defined it. (Word count limit on polls are pretty restrictive so these definitions aren't the most thorough - just pick whatever fits best and feel free to elaborate in the notes!)

I'd like to take a moment to discuss the relative visibility of different groups of trans people, and in particular I hope to clear up some common misconceptions I see regarding these terms.

It is generally understood that trans women and transfems are often the subjects of hypervisibility, while trans men and transmascs more often deal with invisibility. But what do we actually mean when we say "transfem hypervisibility" and "transmasc invisibility"?

I frequently see people interpret the concept of "visibility" to mean "representation in media," and while representation - good or bad - is certainly part of what visibility is meant to describe, it's only a small piece of a much more complex phenomenon.

For the sake of clarifying these terms, I'd like to suggest some additional/alternative language that feels more straightforward in my opinion: Scrutiny and Erasure

Transmasculine Erasure

I'll start with erasure because this is a term that is already fairly well established within some transmasculine circles. So what does the term "erasure" convey that "invisibility" doesn't?

"Invisibility" has a passive connotation, implying that transmasculine invisibility is merely an unintended consequence, or that it is the natural state of things. In contrast, "erasure" has an active connotation; trans men and transmascs are being actively erased, ergo there are systemic forces that deliberately and intentionally attempt to erase trans men.

On a similar note, "invisibility" can imply that transmasculine people are not noticed or targeted for their transmasculinity. This leads to the belief that trans men simply "fly under the radar," or that it is relatively easy for trans men to pass and live completely stealth.

Not only are these misconceptions entirely false, but accepting these public misconceptions and treating transmasculine people as if they are privileged because they "have it easier" is in fact actively participating in their erasure. Trans men who try to explain that they are not actually targeted less than any other trans person, just that they are targeted in different, more covert ways, are dismissed and silenced by those who have fallen for the "transphobes don't target trans men" narrative, thus perpetuating the cycle of erasure.

A historically very similar example is the belief that lesbians face less struggles than gay men due to gay men being more publicly targeted. Nowadays most folks understand that lesbian erasure and invisibility aren't a privilege but rather a fundamental component of their oppression, and we need to reach this same understanding with regards to transmasculine experiences.

Transfeminine Scrutiny

This one is, as far as I'm aware, a term that I made up myself to elaborate on "hypervisibility," similar to the way that some transmasculine people have started using erasure as an alternative/additional explanation for invisibility. With that in mind, if there are other terms I'm not aware of that are already more established, or if folks have any feedback/alternative suggestions, I am all ears.

I chose the term "scrunity" because I believe it more accurately reflects the ways in which transfeminine people are thrust into the public eye, most often in a very negative context. I think it captures the fact that the "hypervisibility" experienced by trans women primarily involves being subject to harsh criticism, judgement, and accusations over every little thing.

Similar to "erasure," "scrutiny" also presents a more active framework. Trans women and transfems are not hypervisible by accident; they are forcefully dragged into the spotlight and made into a public spectacle so that they can be scrutinized by the public and painted as "dangerous predators" or other negative stereotypes. This constant public scrutiny is a fundamental component of their oppression.

"Hypervisibility," much like "invisibility," is also often misunderstood as a privilege. Some people falsely believe that because trans women are more visible, they have a relatively easier time accessing resources and support. Trans women and transfems are also told they are privileged to have so much representation in media, while the majority of that "representation" comes in the form of stereotypes and caricatures that feed into and support bigoted narratives.

When people fall for these misconceptions and treat trans women and transfems as if they are privileged for their hypervisibility, they are actively contributing to the violent cycle of scrutiny and oppression faced by transfeminine people.

The Bottom Line

Neither hypervisibility nor invisibility are a privilege. Both are forms of oppression, with the main difference being how publicly those systems of oppression operate.

These concepts are not a black and white binary, they just describe a general pattern. There are plenty of instances where transfeminine people are also subject to erasure, and transmasculine people are also subject to scrutiny. Trans people who do not fit cleanly into the transfem/transmasc binary also have experiences with these oppressive forces.

Erasure and scrutiny are two sides of the same coin; the ways they are applied to various groups of trans people are inconsistent because they are largely dependent on what makes a more convenient narrative for bigots.

Every single time. Without fail.

Can you all please remember that we exist. Please.

But it shouldn't need to be a tacked on paragraph.

And we shouldn't have to be the only ones responsible for ever explicitly including ourselves in the discussion as more than just a throwaway line or a tacked on paragraph

If you can understand how trans men and trans masculine people are oppressed and how trans women and transfeminine people are oppressed, you can take the time to understand how non-binary people who do not be fit into that binary are oppressed, and give us the same amount of energy you do binary and binary-aligned trans people.

it's not TransUnity If non-binary people who are not part of the Gender Binary 3.0 have to write an essay because we are once again being excluded from posts that are meant to be talking about the whole community.

If you want real TransUnity, then you have to take the time to listen to non-binary people who are not transmasculine and transfeminine and speak on our behalf when you are making your own posts instead of expecting us to do it for you.

Solidarity means when you're making your own post, and you've clearly put a lot of thought into it, you give us the same amount of thought as you do everybody else.

All we are asking is that people put in the effort to include us instead of treating us like an afterthought, and always defending it by saying "well that deserves a post all its own". Why not on this post? We're always being told to wait.

It would be one thing if the post were titled explicitly transmasculine and transfeminine hypervisibility and blah blah blah, but it just says trans. Which means it should be talking about all of us and taking all of our experiences into account, but once again we are just an afterthought.

I am not expecting anyone to do anything for me. I made the personal choice to save the topic of nonbinary erasure for a future post, but I opened up the space for others to speak on the subject should they feel inclined to do so. It was an offer, not a demand or expectation. It rather feels like you are the one putting expectations on me.

What I hope you can understand is that I wrote this post with a very specific audience and message in mind, and I chose to prioritize conveying that message to that audience. Part of that process is keeping the post as short, digestible, and to the point as possible. This post does not elaborate on nonbinary experiences because the subject and intended audience, in this particular case, are indeed trans people who do happen to fit into the transmasc/transfem binary. That is the answer to "why not on this post?"

I do not say that the topic of nonbinary erasure deserves its own post as a defense or to be flippant. I say it because I mean it. I want to treat the topic with the respect and full focus that it deserves, and I have genuine intentions to make more posts specifically about nonbinary people in the future. I am sorry if you disagree with that, but that is the decision I have made based on my writing style and the message(s) I want to communicate.

Reacting to criticism of erasure of non-binary people by trying to say that I must be assuming your gender is not the correct response.

And yes, I hate to break it to you, but if you are literally naming your blog TransUnity, you are in fact setting up expectations that you will actually be fighting for trans unity for all trans people. Not sure why you're acting like this is a shocking revelation.

Yes, you are asking people to expect better of you than other blogs that do not literally call themselves trans-unity.

You have purposefully and willfully taken on a responsibility to speak for and of all trans people.

The bare minimum is including non-binary people who are not transmasculine and transfeminine in important posts like this. Relegating us to the sidelines or other posts that trans men and trans women and transmasculine and transfeminine people can safely ignore because it's not relevant to them is exactly contributing to our active erasure that you can understand when it is being applied to people who are trans men or transmasculine.

you could have just specified the exact terms you are talking about instead of bringing gender into it if you wanted a short concise post, but you are tying these experiences directly to gender and gender identities and only to the identities of binary and binary aligned people.

Making posts solely about binary and binary aligned people, and other separate posts that are only about other non-binary people doesn't actually help the rest of us non-binary people, it just gives binary and binary aligned people more excuses to ignore us. Everybody already knows that posts strictly about non-binary people who cannot be fit into the newest gender binary get fewer notes then ones about everybody else.

You are contributing to that by leaving us out of posts like this that have more than enough space for us and no, talking about us and including us is not making things too complicated.

If you don't want people to expect you to care about all trans people, then don't literally make your blog title trans-unity.

you could have just said oh shit my bad sorry I will do better in the future instead of all of this which is just insisting that including the entire trans community is just too complicated and too much effort and relegated only to separate posts that everybody can safely ignore.

I still think you are being unnecessarily antagonistic. I empathized with your concerns, clarified my intentions, apologized, and edited the original post to be more accurate. I think that's more than a fair response.

I think it's very strange to insist that my blog title being trans-unity implies I must speak on every single type of trans experience in every single post. If I made a post specifically about trans women's or trans men's issues, or specifically about nonbinary issues, would you make the same complaint?

You might recall a previous post of mine, which I believe you yourself reblogged, in which I did speak on all types of trans people, including a section about nonbinary people and specifically about nonbinary people who do not fit into the transmasc/transfem binary. I did so because it was relevant to the subject matter of the post. In this case I focused specifically on transfem and transmasc people, because that was what was relevant to this post. If and when I make a post specifically about nonbinary people, it will be because that is the subject matter of that post. I gave you my reasoning, and it wasn't anything to do with it being "too complicated" or "too much effort" - that's just putting words in my mouth. If you don't like the way I choose to format and organize my posts by subject matter that's fine, you do not have to follow me or reblog from me. But blaming me and accusing me of contributing to posts about nonbinary experiences getting less visibility because I chose to make One singular post that had a more binary focus feels out of pocket.

I'd like to take a moment to discuss the relative visibility of different groups of trans people, and in particular I hope to clear up some common misconceptions I see regarding these terms.

It is generally understood that trans women and transfems are often the subjects of hypervisibility, while trans men and transmascs more often deal with invisibility. But what do we actually mean when we say "transfem hypervisibility" and "transmasc invisibility"?

I frequently see people interpret the concept of "visibility" to mean "representation in media," and while representation - good or bad - is certainly part of what visibility is meant to describe, it's only a small piece of a much more complex phenomenon.

For the sake of clarifying these terms, I'd like to suggest some additional/alternative language that feels more straightforward in my opinion: Scrutiny and Erasure

Transmasculine Erasure

I'll start with erasure because this is a term that is already fairly well established within some transmasculine circles. So what does the term "erasure" convey that "invisibility" doesn't?

"Invisibility" has a passive connotation, implying that transmasculine invisibility is merely an unintended consequence, or that it is the natural state of things. In contrast, "erasure" has an active connotation; trans men and transmascs are being actively erased, ergo there are systemic forces that deliberately and intentionally attempt to erase trans men.

On a similar note, "invisibility" can imply that transmasculine people are not noticed or targeted for their transmasculinity. This leads to the belief that trans men simply "fly under the radar," or that it is relatively easy for trans men to pass and live completely stealth.

Not only are these misconceptions entirely false, but accepting these public misconceptions and treating transmasculine people as if they are privileged because they "have it easier" is in fact actively participating in their erasure. Trans men who try to explain that they are not actually targeted less than any other trans person, just that they are targeted in different, more covert ways, are dismissed and silenced by those who have fallen for the "transphobes don't target trans men" narrative, thus perpetuating the cycle of erasure.

A historically very similar example is the belief that lesbians face less struggles than gay men due to gay men being more publicly targeted. Nowadays most folks understand that lesbian erasure and invisibility aren't a privilege but rather a fundamental component of their oppression, and we need to reach this same understanding with regards to transmasculine experiences.

Transfeminine Scrutiny

This one is, as far as I'm aware, a term that I made up myself to elaborate on "hypervisibility," similar to the way that some transmasculine people have started using erasure as an alternative/additional explanation for invisibility. With that in mind, if there are other terms I'm not aware of that are already more established, or if folks have any feedback/alternative suggestions, I am all ears.

I chose the term "scrunity" because I believe it more accurately reflects the ways in which transfeminine people are thrust into the public eye, most often in a very negative context. I think it captures the fact that the "hypervisibility" experienced by trans women primarily involves being subject to harsh criticism, judgement, and accusations over every little thing.

Similar to "erasure," "scrutiny" also presents a more active framework. Trans women and transfems are not hypervisible by accident; they are forcefully dragged into the spotlight and made into a public spectacle so that they can be scrutinized by the public and painted as "dangerous predators" or other negative stereotypes. This constant public scrutiny is a fundamental component of their oppression.

"Hypervisibility," much like "invisibility," is also often misunderstood as a privilege. Some people falsely believe that because trans women are more visible, they have a relatively easier time accessing resources and support. Trans women and transfems are also told they are privileged to have so much representation in media, while the majority of that "representation" comes in the form of stereotypes and caricatures that feed into and support bigoted narratives.

When people fall for these misconceptions and treat trans women and transfems as if they are privileged for their hypervisibility, they are actively contributing to the violent cycle of scrutiny and oppression faced by transfeminine people.

The Bottom Line

Neither hypervisibility nor invisibility are a privilege. Both are forms of oppression, with the main difference being how publicly those systems of oppression operate.

These concepts are not a black and white binary, they just describe a general pattern. There are plenty of instances where transfeminine people are also subject to erasure, and transmasculine people are also subject to scrutiny. Trans people who do not fit cleanly into the transfem/transmasc binary also have experiences with these oppressive forces.

Erasure and scrutiny are two sides of the same coin; the ways they are applied to various groups of trans people are inconsistent because they are largely dependent on what makes a more convenient narrative for bigots.

Every single time. Without fail.

Can you all please remember that we exist. Please.

But it shouldn't need to be a tacked on paragraph.

And we shouldn't have to be the only ones responsible for ever explicitly including ourselves in the discussion as more than just a throwaway line or a tacked on paragraph

If you can understand how trans men and trans masculine people are oppressed and how trans women and transfeminine people are oppressed, you can take the time to understand how non-binary people who do not be fit into that binary are oppressed, and give us the same amount of energy you do binary and binary-aligned trans people.

it's not TransUnity If non-binary people who are not part of the Gender Binary 3.0 have to write an essay because we are once again being excluded from posts that are meant to be talking about the whole community.

If you want real TransUnity, then you have to take the time to listen to non-binary people who are not transmasculine and transfeminine and speak on our behalf when you are making your own posts instead of expecting us to do it for you.

Solidarity means when you're making your own post, and you've clearly put a lot of thought into it, you give us the same amount of thought as you do everybody else.

All we are asking is that people put in the effort to include us instead of treating us like an afterthought, and always defending it by saying "well that deserves a post all its own". Why not on this post? We're always being told to wait.

It would be one thing if the post were titled explicitly transmasculine and transfeminine hypervisibility and blah blah blah, but it just says trans. Which means it should be talking about all of us and taking all of our experiences into account, but once again we are just an afterthought.

I am not expecting anyone to do anything for me. I made the personal choice to save the topic of nonbinary erasure for a future post, but I opened up the space for others to speak on the subject should they feel inclined to do so. It was an offer, not a demand or expectation. It rather feels like you are the one putting expectations on me.

What I hope you can understand is that I wrote this post with a very specific audience and message in mind, and I chose to prioritize conveying that message to that audience. Part of that process is keeping the post as short, digestible, and to the point as possible. This post does not elaborate on nonbinary experiences because the subject and intended audience, in this particular case, are indeed trans people who do happen to fit into the transmasc/transfem binary. That is the answer to "why not on this post?"

I do not say that the topic of nonbinary erasure deserves its own post as a defense or to be flippant. I say it because I mean it. I want to treat the topic with the respect and full focus that it deserves, and I have genuine intentions to make more posts specifically about nonbinary people in the future. I am sorry if you disagree with that, but that is the decision I have made based on my writing style and the message(s) I want to communicate.

I'd like to take a moment to discuss the relative visibility of different groups of trans people, and in particular I hope to clear up some common misconceptions I see regarding these terms.

It is generally understood that trans women and transfems are often the subjects of hypervisibility, while trans men and transmascs more often deal with invisibility. But what do we actually mean when we say "transfem hypervisibility" and "transmasc invisibility"?

I frequently see people interpret the concept of "visibility" to mean "representation in media," and while representation - good or bad - is certainly part of what visibility is meant to describe, it's only a small piece of a much more complex phenomenon.

For the sake of clarifying these terms, I'd like to suggest some additional/alternative language that feels more straightforward in my opinion: Scrutiny and Erasure

Transmasculine Erasure

I'll start with erasure because this is a term that is already fairly well established within some transmasculine circles. So what does the term "erasure" convey that "invisibility" doesn't?

"Invisibility" has a passive connotation, implying that transmasculine invisibility is merely an unintended consequence, or that it is the natural state of things. In contrast, "erasure" has an active connotation; trans men and transmascs are being actively erased, ergo there are systemic forces that deliberately and intentionally attempt to erase trans men.

On a similar note, "invisibility" can imply that transmasculine people are not noticed or targeted for their transmasculinity. This leads to the belief that trans men simply "fly under the radar," or that it is relatively easy for trans men to pass and live completely stealth.

Not only are these misconceptions entirely false, but accepting these public misconceptions and treating transmasculine people as if they are privileged because they "have it easier" is in fact actively participating in their erasure. Trans men who try to explain that they are not actually targeted less than any other trans person, just that they are targeted in different, more covert ways, are dismissed and silenced by those who have fallen for the "transphobes don't target trans men" narrative, thus perpetuating the cycle of erasure.

A historically very similar example is the belief that lesbians face less struggles than gay men due to gay men being more publicly targeted. Nowadays most folks understand that lesbian erasure and invisibility aren't a privilege but rather a fundamental component of their oppression, and we need to reach this same understanding with regards to transmasculine experiences.

Transfeminine Scrutiny

This one is, as far as I'm aware, a term that I made up myself to elaborate on "hypervisibility," similar to the way that some transmasculine people have started using erasure as an alternative/additional explanation for invisibility. With that in mind, if there are other terms I'm not aware of that are already more established, or if folks have any feedback/alternative suggestions, I am all ears.

I chose the term "scrunity" because I believe it more accurately reflects the ways in which transfeminine people are thrust into the public eye, most often in a very negative context. I think it captures the fact that the "hypervisibility" experienced by trans women primarily involves being subject to harsh criticism, judgement, and accusations over every little thing.

Similar to "erasure," "scrutiny" also presents a more active framework. Trans women and transfems are not hypervisible by accident; they are forcefully dragged into the spotlight and made into a public spectacle so that they can be scrutinized by the public and painted as "dangerous predators" or other negative stereotypes. This constant public scrutiny is a fundamental component of their oppression.

"Hypervisibility," much like "invisibility," is also often misunderstood as a privilege. Some people falsely believe that because trans women are more visible, they have a relatively easier time accessing resources and support. Trans women and transfems are also told they are privileged to have so much representation in media, while the majority of that "representation" comes in the form of stereotypes and caricatures that feed into and support bigoted narratives.

When people fall for these misconceptions and treat trans women and transfems as if they are privileged for their hypervisibility, they are actively contributing to the violent cycle of scrutiny and oppression faced by transfeminine people.

The Bottom Line

Neither hypervisibility nor invisibility are a privilege. Both are forms of oppression, with the main difference being how publicly those systems of oppression operate.

These concepts are not a black and white binary, they just describe a general pattern. There are plenty of instances where transfeminine people are also subject to erasure, and transmasculine people are also subject to scrutiny. Trans people who do not fit cleanly into the transfem/transmasc binary also have experiences with these oppressive forces.

Erasure and scrutiny are two sides of the same coin; the ways they are applied to various groups of trans people are inconsistent because they are largely dependent on what makes a more convenient narrative for bigots.

Every single time. Without fail.

Can you all please remember that we exist. Please.

The whole point that is kind of being missed here is that it is inaccurate at best to define feminism as a movement for women. Feminism is first and foremost a movement that seeks to achieve gender equality, and thus should focus on uplifting the voices of every group that experiences discrimination based on their gender identity, presentation, sex characteristics, and so on. That is why trans men belong in feminism.

Also, a lot of people reblogging this copied my original tags and on reflection I do think they belong in the body of the post, so I'll add those here:

The format is: reblog this post and share something positive about a trans person or group whose gender(s)/experiences are different from your own. So for example if you are a binary trans person, you might share something positive about nonbinary trans people or vice versa. Any and all genders included, no restrictions to this other than to please choose someone whose identity/experiences of transness are different from your own in some way, as the whole point is to show unity and solidarity across arbitrary divides like binary/nonbinary, masc/fem, perisex/intersex, monogender/multigender, etc.

The message itself can be anything you like, some examples being:

-an uplifting message of support, solidarity, gratitude, etc.

-a personal experience you had with another trans person who helped you in your transition, or made you feel empowered, inspired, safe, welcome, etc.

-a friendly/wholesome meme

-an article or story about trans people working together

-a shoutout to a specific trans person in your life

-promoting a trans youtuber/streamer/artist/whatever whose work you admire

literally it can be anything at all that fits the theme of trans unity and solidarity! my hope is to get some reblog chains going, but if you prefer you can also leave your message as a reply or make your own post and tag it as #trans unity

all that out of the way, I'll start with my own message:

---