Untitled

in practical terms, the only way to have a gender segregated space is to grant or deny access to that space through the policing of people’s genders which is, y’know, notoriously bad for trans people and intersex people and POC and anyone perceived to be even slightly gender non-conforming. “well we just won’t police it like that” 1) okay well if you’re not actually enforcing it then it just becomes gender neutral by default, so what’s the point? 2) people WILL police each other’s genders in gendered spaces, this is just a fact and not something you can actually stop from happening in any meaningful way.

not to mention the fact that gendered segregation is, again, just inherently sexist. this is something that even cis feminists have been saying for decades, but due to the rise of radical feminism we’ve slid completely backwards to the point where people who think of themselves as feminists genuinely believe that gendered segregation is somehow actually a good thing, or that it can be made progressive if we just do it the “right way.” the focus on including trans people in gendered spaces is just accepting the premise that gendered spaces should exist and are somehow justifiable, which is counterproductive to the acceptance and well-being of everyone, and is especially detrimental to anyone who isn’t a white gender-conforming binary cis person.

I would like to say that I strenuously agree with most of your points: yes, gendered spaces can never be fully trans-inclusive. Yes, spaces should always be gender neutral in a just society. But it is not a "distraction" to argue that currently extant gendered spaces should be trans inclusive.

To invent an example, if an all-women's motorcycle club denied a trans woman's entry, this would be an inherent and to some extent inevitable consequence of the gendered nature of the club. This doesn't mean that it isn't also an individual example of transphobia that can be fought. Sure, it doesn't solve the systemic issue with the club, but arguing for allowing that trans woman entry into the club in particular has the potential to make someone's life materially better, and classing it as a distraction is unhelpful.

Like yes, I agree that on an individual level, it’s a good thing for trans people to be allowed to join groups or access spaces in accordance with their gender, and excluding them is harmful and if they are able to fight to change that and make the space more inclusive then that’s a good thing that can improve the life of that individual person.

And I don’t fault you for reading this the way you did because I didn’t make it very clear in the original post, but what I was speaking about was moreso on the broad level where laws and policies from large institutions tend to be involved: things like access to public restrooms, maternity wards and OBGYN offices, sports leagues, feminist groups, domestic violence shelters, etc. And on this broader level, I do think that arguing to make these things “trans-inclusive” rather than gender neutral is a mistake, and I do think it distracts us from effectively tackling the root cause of the problem. I have personally seen a very concerning number of trans people themselves who genuinely believe that these spaces and groups should continue to be separated by gender, just with trans people being gendered correctly — or at least binary trans people, that is, because nonbinary people are almost always completely ignored or forced back into a binary in these conversations. If you haven’t seen it for yourself then I consider you very lucky, but there is a very real problem amongst some trans folks refusing to let go of their own “trans-inclusive” brand of gender essentialism.

in practical terms, the only way to have a gender segregated space is to grant or deny access to that space through the policing of people’s genders which is, y’know, notoriously bad for trans people and intersex people and POC and anyone perceived to be even slightly gender non-conforming. “well we just won’t police it like that” 1) okay well if you’re not actually enforcing it then it just becomes gender neutral by default, so what’s the point? 2) people WILL police each other’s genders in gendered spaces, this is just a fact and not something you can actually stop from happening in any meaningful way.

not to mention the fact that gendered segregation is, again, just inherently sexist. this is something that even cis feminists have been saying for decades, but due to the rise of radical feminism we’ve slid completely backwards to the point where people who think of themselves as feminists genuinely believe that gendered segregation is somehow actually a good thing, or that it can be made progressive if we just do it the “right way.” the focus on including trans people in gendered spaces is just accepting the premise that gendered spaces should exist and are somehow justifiable, which is counterproductive to the acceptance and well-being of everyone, and is especially detrimental to anyone who isn’t a white gender-conforming binary cis person.

Screenshotted reply is from this post, which I’m sharing because I already wanted to make a post about how radfem rhetoric always ends up being transphobic no matter what, and this person just made my job a lot easier by making an example of herself. Honestly I wanted to believe she was a troll but her blog has been active long enough that I’m pretty certain she’s genuine.

Just imagine going onto a nonbinary person’s post about analyzing manhood/masculinity as an intersection of identity, misgendering that person while telling trans men that their gender doesn’t exist except as an oppressive class, that they should detransition and identify as nonbinary instead, making a separate post about hating trans men and predatorjacketing them in the tags, and thinking you’re any less of a transphobe than the average TERF.

I’m not even going to touch the racism stuff because I’m white and I genuinely have no idea how to begin unpacking all that, but POC please feel free to speak up in the notes.

Anyway. The end point of radical feminism will always, always be transphobia, no matter how much “trans-inclusive” paint you try to coat it in. This is why you should treat man-hating, “kill all men” type “jokes” as the transphobic dogwhistles they are — no matter who it comes from.

so, the thing that is often misunderstood (or misrepresented) about shinigami eyes is that its not an extension used for detecting transphobia but transmisogyny. it aims to inform users about when a user engages in transmisogynistic behavior or promotes transfeminism.

the distinction between the two is important, as transmisogyny is at the intersection of transphobia and misogyny

transphobia is the prejudice against those who transgress gender norms, threatening cisgendered society. it is broadly directed at people who are under the transgender umbrella (transsexuals, two-spirit, nonbinary and/or intersex folk, among others).

misogyny is the prejudice against femininity and those who exhibit it as it threatens patriarchal society. misogyny affects those who has a feminine identity, such as women, both cis and trans, flamboyant men who are overly feminine, again, among others.

transmisogyny is directed at largely at transgender (or transsexual) women, but also may also affect others situationally. both trans women and trans men may be harmed by transmisogyny, but the key distinction is that while trans men may exempt themselves from transmisogyny by demonstrating their masculinity, trans women cannot escape transmisogyny. similarly, cisgender women may exempt themselves by affirming their cisgender identity, where again, trans women cannot. and so, trans women are transmisogyny affected, or TMA, where others are transmisogyny exempt, or TME.

there are trans men who may say that they are transmisogyny affected due to their female assignment at birth, and their transgresion of norms when they transitioned. however, what they experience is analagous to transmisogyny, but not the same. to explain the difference, Julia Serano uses the term traditional sexism and oppositional sexism as two forms of sexism.

in regards to whether trans men are affected by transmisogyny, "These latter debates can be resolved by recognizing that what has historically been called sexism consists of at least two components. Serano used the term traditional sexism to describe the assumption that femaleness and femininity are inferior to maleness and masculinity. But in order to maintain that hierarchy, there needs to be a secondary force discouraging people from blurring or traversing those states of being. Serano called this latter force oppositional sexism and defined it as the belief that “male” and “female” represent mutually exclusive categories, each possessing diametrically opposed attributes, abilities, and desires. In other words, homophobia and transphobia are manifestations of oppositional sexism. Together, these forces create the double bind that feminists have long described, where if a woman behaves femininely, she will be deemed “appropriate” but not taken seriously (due to traditional sexism), but if she behaves masculinely, she will be deemed “inappropriate” and subjected to derision (due to oppositional sexism). Trans male/masculine people tend to face an analogous dynamic, experiencing traditional sexism when they are imagined to be “girls/women,” and oppositional sexism (in the form of transphobia) when they are understood to be trans male masculine. In some cases, traditional sexist sentiments may be invoked during the enforcement of oppositional sexism for example, when transphobic homophobic harassment is rationalized as “putting her back in her place”—but, by and large, AFAB people tend to experience these two forms of sexism under somewhat distinct circumstances."

so, shinigami eyes is an important tool for identifying transmisogynistic actors, to protect other transfemine folk from those who would do us harm. as with all tools, it is imperfect, and may have both false negatives and false positives, but it is largely maligned by its detractors.

unfortunately, some trans folk are labeled as red for not being safe for transmisogynistic behavior. when trans people assume that the extension is mesnt to mark transphobia, then the confusion as to its purpose is understandable. often it is used to mark those who promote the theory of transandrophobia, which describes an intersectional term where trans men are discriminated against on the basis of being trans and men, or transphobia and misandry. however, this theory is flawed, as it postits that men experience discrimination for their masculinity, and that trans men are doubly discriminated against as being both transgender and male

“This extension is focused on anti- trans (including anti-nonbinary) sentiment, of all flavors: radfem/terf, religious, alt-right etc.”

Description taken directly from the guidelines on the shinigami eyes github page. Idk if OP is just lying for fun or if she’s genuinely never looked at the guidelines but either way she’s pulling this information directly out of her ass.

Nowhere in the guidelines does shinigami eyes represent itself as being specifically for identifying transmisogyny, in fact quite the opposite as you can see from the quote I pulled. It’s supposed to be for marking all kinds of transphobia, although due to current discourse it is being abused by bad actors to disproportionately mark trans men, nonbinary people, intersex people, and basically anyone who stands up for these groups or just doesn’t buy into “TMA/TME” bullshit as transphobic, while people who are openly hateful towards these groups of trans people are frequently marked green. Take a look through the reviews if you’d like to see more testimonies about why shinigami eyes is utterly useless these days.

Serano has also explicitly stated that her oiginal writings about trans men and non-binary people weren’t particularly accurate, and has supported the idea of creating additional language to describe the intersections of oppression faced by groups of trans people other than trans women.