Tuttle Did It

Tell them they don’t have the right to assume anyone’s identity or pronouns.

When they only list M or F to identify by, ask them why there are not more options. Tell them that you expect to see more options because not everyone fits into those two boxes. You don’t have to select one of the others if you don’t identify that way. But ask these people why there are not options for the people who do.

Demands that they have more titles that are gender free when you’re filling out forms and it just says Mr. or Ms. No, you don’t have to use them. Just ask why they I dust in having such an antiquated system with only two binary options.

When pronouns options are not listed on something, ask them why they’re not listed. Ask them where the boxes are so you can self identify, rather than have others tried to determine it.

They don’t care when we ask. We are just the freaks to them, remember?

But. When you ask? When you normals ask, it normalise it. And then other normals will start to listen. Because they ain’t gonna listen to us. We’re the freaks.

someone was talking about how it's weird that their tmasc friend is uncomfortable using the men's restroom when they pass and this is an example of "afab privilege"

like gee i wonder why he would feel uncomfortable

it's almost like transmascs have the highest assault rates

it's almost like the discrimination/misogyny one has faced from not being born a perisex man doesn't go away simply from being trans and transitioning into a man

it's almost like going into spaces that were technically built for cisgender perisex men is subjecting yourself to more situations where abuse can happen due to not being born a perisex man

The thing is it IS distinguishable from these types of rhetoric and I think it's really important we do that, because "both" sides of the argument love to accuse each other of being MRAs, and I think it's then often 1. transmisogynistic 2. doesn't really get to the root of the issue 3. lets radfeminism off the hook as if it's *not* wildly misogynistic

You are correct in identifying how blatantly misogynistic it is and how much it ends up sounding like incel/mra/manosphere/etc (admittedly had to look up mgtow which is as funny as it is pathetically reactionary) things because it also often expands in spaces where other fascist ideologies blossom--particularly uses of "-oid" and slurs, phrenology language, etc.

Where we need to separate is that even TRF trans men are not moving in the same sphere as mra cis men, and to suggest TRF trans women are is a whole other can of worms, because the spaces you list refer to a supremacy and separatism of men. This isn't that.

It is the same misogynistic reactionary separatism that cis women radfems employ, but with a trans flavor, where either instead of inherent positionality of oppressor/victim due to birth assignment, it is either STILL bioessentialist implying those positions are dictated by hormones/surgeries/etc--which then encourages the detransition of trans men and pushes transmedicalism on trans women--OR it becomes gender essentialist, where they believe that your innate sense of gender dictates a binary oppressor/victim status, where trans men are evil for "choosing" maleness (and must atone) and trans women are "becoming pure" by "rejecting" the evils of "maleness."

Radfeminism positions maleness, masculinity, etc as the sign of an oppressor, and femaleness, femininity is a rejection of it. Under this system, trans men are rejecting the gift of femaleness and are "bad" for it--which is just transphobia and also misogynistic (especially the idea that trans men only transition to escape misogyny). And trans women are under perpetual scrutiny to adequately reject maleness and masculinity to an appropriate degree--resulting in anyone who fails to conform to the rigid societal definition of woman to not be seen as woman enough--which is, you guessed it--transphobic and misogynistic.