Sorry, this paper pissed me off so I have to rant about it. Honestly congrats to Piper for distilling so many shitty takes about transunitist transfeminism into a single dissertation!
(Using they/them for Primrose Piper since idk their pronouns)
First of all, I find it very funny that entire issue this paper seems to be trying to highlight is that its bad that the transfeminism tag on tumblr has so many posts about trans men, because transfeminism is supposed to be about trans women, & Piper uses Emi Koyama's definition of transfeminism that is defined exclusively around trans women to ground this complaint:
To understand this study, one must first understand what is meant by the term “transfeminism.” In 2001, Emi Koyama created The Transfeminist Manifesto, the first systematic description of the philosophy. Specifically, transfeminism as a feminist theory centers around intersectionality of identity and how intersectional feminist analyses apply to and affect transgender women as a coalition.
when Emi herself specifically said the Manifesto was a "historical document only" and to explain that, linked to her writing on racist feminism, where she talked about how her own fears of challenging white cis feminism led to her creating "a version of white feminism changed just enough for trans women" and tied that directly to her own own failure to properly include the experiences and oppression of trans men and genderqueer people. and Emi also defined "transfeminism" in her faq on her blog as such:
Emi defines transfeminism as a branch of feminism influenced or enhanced by integrating lived experiences of trans and genderqueer people, giving voice to feminists who are trans, genderqueer, or allies. Narrowly, Emi has used transfeminism as "primarily a movement by and for trans women who view their liberation to be intrinsically linked to the liberation of all women and beyond" [Emi's bolding, not mine!]
So like, it is frankly disingenuous to say that trans people using transfeminism in a way that includes all trans people, and isn't necessarily centered on trans women, is going against Emi's definition. & it really doesn't present Emi's work in the nuanced context it deserves. They chose to use the narrow definition, instead of the far more inclusive one that Emi chose to forefront, and in doing so did not actually engage with Emi's work beyond what was convenient for their purpose. I also don't think that any real study of transunitist transfeminism or transandrophobia theory should be done by just looking at the top posts in the tags - a lot of the posts that get circulated aren't tagged, or might not show up in the top 300 posts in the tag.
& then there's this bullshit:
Other portions of the data clarify these Tumblr users’ views, as well as their distance from popular and academic attitudes towards transfeminism. The prevailing Tumblr attitude towards transfeminism is deeply isolated from transfeminist ideas as presented in the literature. For example, the data shows four references to Julia Serano, one of which is contained within the tag “#fuck serano these people deserve their own post devoid of her.” While the work of Serano is neither the end-all nor be-all of transfeminist ideology, it is extremely foundational to the field. As such, her omission from the discourse is striking, comparable to a discussion of existentialism that avoids mentioning Sartre. Further, of the 27 tags coded with the “Names” code, one third (nine) included the names of feminist theorists. In other words, only 3% of the dataset referenced feminist writers at all, many of whom (e.g. bell hooks) were not transfeminists. Twice as many posts referenced Tumblr usernames (18). This shows the isolation of Tumblr discussions of transfeminism from feminist theory writ large. To further the point that this Tumblr discourse is male-dominated, consider the dichotomy between tags mentioning “anti-transmasculity” and those referencing “anti-transfemininity.”
Like, ugh. I don't disagree that tumblr tags can be an interesting area for research, but like their point is that "prevailing Tumblr attitude towards transfeminism is deeply isolated from transfeminist ideas" because people don't mention Serano enough in the tags of the top 300 posts in #transfeminism? Also like, yeah bell hooks isn't a transfeminist, but it just feels weird to write off Black feminist contributions and how much they have shaped transunitist transfeminist discourse, because they "aren't transfeminists." Especially after cherrypicking the words of the trans woman of color whose definition on transfeminism they used. & Piper does state that they are white. Not that its particularly shocking.
& if Piper wants people engaging with the work of Serano, I promise, you can find them! Multiple bloggers who talk about transandrophobia have done like, entire read throughs of it and talked publicly about both what they find valuable and what they have criticisms of. I've seen her concept of oppositional sexism be used quite a bit.
Piper never actually talks about Saint or how he theorized transandrophobia, of course. This is what they have to say on the subject, and to no one's surprise, it gets real infantilizing real quick:
It is necessary in the discussion of this intense ideological debate to give trans men on Tumblr the benefit of the doubt. The treatment of trans men is important, including within feminist spaces. Trans men do face particular varieties of transphobia, based in oppositional sexism. They hold a unique position in society, and the world (and feminism writ large) can learn a lot from them. However, no transfeminist literature contests these facts. Rather, transfeminism often seeks to understand how oppositional sexism can be at play in these interactions. While transfeminism is often by and for transfeminine people, it does not seek to minimize nor erase transmasculine experience. This is clearly not the view of Tumblr users. Consider the terms used in these discussions: misandry, anti-transmasculine, androphobic: this genre of terminology refers to grievance, men being treated as lesser due to their maleness. This is simply not the goal of any transfeminist thought or action. How, then, can we integrate the popular Tumblr conception of transfeminism with actual transfeminist theory? Any variety of feminism focuses on the power structures of patriarchy, and how they are perpetuated. Transfeminism does, at times, point out how transgender men benefit from said power structures. Could this be the impetus for all this backlash? On a more personal note, this whole situation feels somewhat tragic. To be minoritized and oppressed and then told you are still capable of benefiting from the same power structures that also serve to perpetuate your own oppression must be difficult. I, the author, am white, and benefit from white privilege. I am also a member of multiple minority groups. Coming to terms with the fact that society’s white supremacist power structures benefit me in numerous ways was difficult, but a crucial part of identity formation. Thankfully for me, I was not posting about it on the internet. Obviously, and as shown in the data, a contingent of the parties to this argument are young, still learning and solidifying their identities: “#im literally 14.” Many of these people likely do not have a large community of queer elders with which they can connect, instead choosing to express themselves online. They may not know any transgender women, and they might be guided by surface-level distaste or disgust, in which much transmisogyny is based.
It is easy to dismiss these disenfranchised young men. With such a clear distinction between what these people believe transfeminism to be and what it truly is, the most obvious answer is to dismiss this discourse out of hand.
I am forever fucking sick of people talking about transandrophobia while refusing to actually talk about the man who coined it.
"Transfeminism is often by and for transfeminine people, it does not seek to minimize nor erase transmasculine experience" says who? You? That transfeminism could be actively contributing to erasure is just written of as something that is objectively not happening, no room for discussion, no potential that any criticisms of popular transfeminist thought and how it has engaged with transmasculinity have any weight. Because it just doesn't, according to Piper, and the fact that some silly boys online think it does is an intriguing mystery to solve.
It is also fucking laughable to say that because anti-transmasculinity isn't the "goal" of transfeminism, its not relevant. Racism is also not the fucking stated goal of most white feminists, and yet! Its almost like that isn't how ingrained bigotry fucking work! "Could this be the impetus for this backlash?" Literally go fuck yourselffff oh my god. Could that be any more condescending. Just the complete and total denial that there could be any issues with anti-transmasculine sentiment in trans and feminist spaces, while acting like you are oh so graciously giving these poor disenfranchised ignorant young trans men the "benefit of the doubt."
And then comparing transandrophobia theory to Piper's own issues recognizing their white privilege, when transandrophobia was coined and theorized by a man of color, multiple trans men and women and nonbinary people of color have been massively influential (S.L Void comes to mind), and so much of this has been influenced by the Black feminists that Piper writes off as "not transfeminists" .... okay then!!!!!!!
The data was collected manually from the top posts in the “Popular” section of the tags mentioned below, and added to a spreadsheet without identifiable information like usernames. It was then coded for themes, developing an understanding of what is meant by the terms as well as what prevailing sentiments appear toward transfeminism. The constant comparison method allows for patterns to emerge over time and iterations, giving a more in-depth analysis compared to other forms of coding.
On an online platform like Tumblr, content analysis is the most viable method to develop an understanding of internet behavior and ideas. While interviews could provide interesting thoughts about my topic, content analysis allows for a deeper understanding of general sentiment due to its ability to analyze a larger dataset. Further, the goal of this paper is to examine online users’ attitudes toward transfeminism. In an interview setting, the social expectations are extremely different from those that exist on an online social media platform. Thus, to understand an online culture, there is no better way than analysis of the culture’s online posting. Further, ethical considerations make content analysis a desirable option. Due to the fact that transgender people are a marginalized population, the data gleaned from interviews could create an unintentional negative impact on specific people.
I have been a user of Tumblr for more than a decade, as well as a transfeminist. Thus, this paper does not seek to litigate transfeminism as a theory, merely to describe conceptualizations thereof. However, my positive associations with transfeminism as well as my choice to manually select tags as examples may impact the analysis and conclusions of my research. Additionally, I have a very positive view of trans women as a community, which may further impact my analyses.
"I have a very positive view of trans women" is sure one way to say "I have a very negative view of trans men" but sure I guess that technically counts as addressing your own biases as a researcher! And certainly there would never be biases in a researcher that would lead them to present a biased reflection of their own biases!
Also "while interviews could provide interesting thoughts about my topic" grinds my fucking gears. It just feels so dismissive. Of fucking course you didn't want to do interviews, of course you chose an approach to this research that justified not doing interviews. Because if you actually sat down and chose a few specific people to talk about transandrophobia and transfeminism with, you couldn't just make strawmen out of these perspectives. You wouldn't be the sole authority on what transandrophobia means, you might have to deal with interviewees challenging this idea that transfeminism isn't for all trans people and pointing to Emi Koyama's work.
It just feels like such a waste of a dissertation tbh! There's a lot of interesting discourse going on with regards to transfeminism right now, and even if you aren't totally on board with transandrophobia theory, there's a lot that could make a really interesting paper exploring the nuances of this discourse and transunitism and the conflict over what transfeminism, and feminism in general, should fundamentally mean and where it should go.
Anyways everyone go read the Transfeminist Manifesto and the Transunitist Manifesto.
