Survivorship bias is such a huge factor when it comes to which queer narratives and stories survive the march of time. For transmasculine people, the challenge has always been not only overcoming anti-queer sentiments of the day, but also contending with a lack of legal and societal personhood that put them in a position where telling their story- or even discovering themselves- was literally impossible. The level of risk involved in even just exploring your identity in secret, let alone finding community and recording your experience, was astronomically high when you were considered another person’s property, largely uneducated and expected to not communicate with anyone other than your husband, relatives and children. I’ve seen mentioned how many societies outlawed and punished gay (mlm) relationships but not lesbian ones, but the rather obvious conclusion to that is because it was seen as such a non issue that it was beneath notice, due to the lack of cis women’s ability to exist outside of the constant control and supervision of her male relatives. To say they were “privileged” for not being legally barred from sapphic relationships would be silly, because legally speaking they would’ve been at the total mercy of their owners (male relatives) if discovered, which served as punishment in itself.

Wrt trans men and transmasculine people specifically, she spends half the book (rightly) railing against oppositional sexism, but then engages in it freely when it comes to trans men. Whatever trans women face, trans men do not, in the way it is framed in the book. E.g. She makes the claim that trans men are freely let into lesbian spaces, but trans women are not. She frames it as though this is the fault of the trans men, rather than the cis lesbians who hold the actual power in this scenario. It also ignores that trans men aren't necessarily "let into" lesbian spaces, but are sometimes included against their will (i.e. they are misgendered based on their presumed agab). There's many other parts of the book which insinuate trans men have it easier in all regards and that has been hugely damaging for the transmasculine community, as it's misinformation. Serano did not need to bring up trans men or transmasculine people at all in many parts of the book, but does so to bolster her argument that trans women have it worse in every single respect. This is plainly not an accurate reflection of the relative positions of trans women and trans men in society.

She's walked back some of these points but the fact is, the fact these were included at all has done damage to nonbinary people and trans men/mascs. We now have to spend time debunking myths perpetuated by the book and fight our own invisibility and erasure.

She was not supportive "this whole time" and her original positions are not "based". Her positions now are better, but damage was done and the impact imo hasn't been adequately addressed by her.

I dislike this revisionism of Serano as someone who was simply misinterpreted by people who didn't read the book - as her own writing shows that if you did read the book, that's where people are getting a lot of these wrong ideas about trans men/mascs and nonbinary people from. Serano didn't originate these wrong ideas, but they have been popularised, in part, by her work.

She has many salient things to say about transmisogyny. But that positive contribution sits alongside this impact on trans men/mascs and nonbinary people. We have to talk about both, refrain from revisionism and examine her work without fear or favour.

They *know* that trans men face misogyny, they *know* trans men aren’t “misgendering themselves” talking about it. It used to be a common feminist saying that yes even cis men are impacted by misogyny. But it’s just a way to divert the argument and get trans men to shut up, it’s a way to distract from the points being made so everyone wastes their time bc they want trans men to exhaust themselves explaining the same shit to the same people over and over again who just do not care.

They *know* that ‘transandrophobia’ actually refers to specifically the bigotry/aversion to trans men, hence the fucking ‘Trans’ in the name. They know it doesn’t actually posit that misandry exists on a systemic level like that of misogyny. They know that it specifically refers to the mix of transphobia and misogyny faced by trans men, combined with using/targeting the trans man’s masculinity (or his supposed lack of such) as a cudgel against him. These “transfeminists” don’t care. They’ve seen what it means, they’ve had it explained to them a hundred times over. Their ignorance is totally feigned so they can continue bashing trans men with impunity. It’s just a way to divert the conversation, and then complain about “tMRAs” when folks come in to correct this believed misconception.

And the fixation on this in particular is exactly the point. It’s more complicated to explain that despite being men, trans men aren’t seen or classed as men by patriarchy. It takes more time to explain how “no, if trans men weren’t trans that wouldn’t make them cis men. That hypothetical is literally impossible and you know it, so it’s worthless to use as a framework”, and that’s precisely the point. It gets you wasting your time explaining something complex to someone who just hates you, because the truth can only be so simple before it stops being true, but at no point can you make a lie so simple it’s no longer a lie. The goal is to prime their audience to tell themselves a story that all this “transandrophobia” complexity is just some stupid “mini Hitler bro bullshit” because if they can just get trans men to shut up then their views can remain simple and unexamined. Every time they say trans men don’t face erasure, or that they’re lucky to be invisible, they actually know that trans men are being actively erased and they’re hoping for it because they don’t want to share space with them or even think about them as anything more than a punching bag who takes it and doesn’t complain.

Like you can explain everything that people concerned with transandrophobia have been saying for years and in response they will stare you dead in the eye right after and just say “misandry isn’t a systemic force” as if you’ve said nothing at all. It’s just a short quippy and wrong thought terminating cliche so that they don’t have to think about it, and more importantly it signals to their audience that they don’t have to think about it either. Like. It’s definitely transphobia, but it’s also just saving themselves from having to think too hard about why they’re constantly targeting trans men, and it absolves them from ever having to reconcile with what they’ve said and perhaps even done to trans men. “Because trans men are men, and they’re annoying, so they deserve it.” It’s an extremely simple idea, and a simple worldview, with a simple conclusion, that doesn’t require them to reflect on their behaviors or beliefs at all. The whole “TMEs” thing posits trans men as being on similar levels of privilege to cis people, and it’s used most oftenly as a derogatory term rather than a descriptor. It’s completely evident in the vocabulary too, it’s never “people who are TME/TME people” or similar, because even that would be far too humanizing. So as long as trans men are basically like cis people in terms of privilege, then they don’t need to be helped, they can be freely mocked without it being considered dragging a minority, and most importantly, these “transfeminists” don’t have to change or reflect on their behavior at all. See? Simple!

But the truth about how trans men are affected by the same oppression just in different ways, facing unique injustices, to the point where trans men as a class genuinely do not hold privilege above trans women, nor act as their oppressors, is a nightmarishly uncomfortable truth to someone who hates trans men and just wants to keep bashing them with a winding diatribe of reactionary rhetoric dressed up with feminist vocabulary. Were that true, it means there’s a problem that requires action. Not only does it mean on an individual level they’d need to reassess their individual biases and behaviors, but much more broadly it means that there’s a problem that needs to be addressed on a big picture social scale.

Like. A common derogatory phrase that gets slung around is shit like “men want to be oppressed so bad” (they always have to remove the ‘trans’ part, ever notice that?) and like. I think most trans men would actually be somewhat reluctantly relieved if it was the case that trans men as a class didn’t struggle as much. Like those who are spreading awareness about misinformation about and general lack of resources surrounding DIY T and bringing attention to the rampant sexual abuse of trans men for instance aren’t doing it because they think this is some fun and silly oppression Olympics game. They want more awareness of these debilitating social issues that go unaddressed and ignored, and every minute “transfeminists” argue about the validity of the terms trans men use to describe this phenomenon is time deliberately wasted because they just hate trans men. We need to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt and start treating them like the reactionaries they are.

Their approach to trans men and specifically trans men simply advocating for themselves is fundamentally authoritarian in nature. And I genuinely am coming to the realization that it’s pointless trying to convince people who have this mindset. It’s a waste of time and if you prove them wrong they don’t care, because they know everything you’re saying, because they’ve heard it before. And it’s not going to get them to adapt and adjust their arguments, they’re just going to keep posting the same “transandrophobia is wrong because misandry isn’t real” takes even knowing what the term actually means. Their mindset is simply not one which revolves around actual material analysis, it’s just what they wish the truth was, and they wish that trans men stayed silent and just took the abuse, because they need a way to hurt men and they’re not gonna risk it with the cis men who actually have power over them. The fact that it’s this constant fixation with trans men and not cis men is fully evidence of this.

They keep saying (well some of the less vitriolic ones at least) “we’re not opposed to you creating your own terms, just make them better” but like, honestly the biggest evidence that you can’t change their minds is their insistence that you can with the right discussion. The argument isn’t supposed to end, it’s supposed to continue indefinitely until trans men back down and be quiet again, and in the meantime, they’ll keep bashing trans men and gleefully contribute to their erasure.

I know I am beating a dead horse at this point but I really need this to sink in. People who are in support of trans men will enter these eventual flamewars with the implied understanding that if they can simply explain the validity of transandrophobia to whichever “transfeminist” in question, they’ll change their views and start supporting trans men in their advocacy. But like, what exactly are the incentives for them to do so? They *want* to hate on trans men (evidenced by the litany of insults all specifically drummed up about them in volumes which I have never seen by the side in support of trans men), and meanwhile, you don’t want them to hate on trans men and deny their experiences, *but they’re already doing that right now.* These “transfeminists” are not pausing their actions and waiting upon the outcome of this debate to reevaluate whether or not they should continue, they will actively deny deny deny trans men’s experiences and their right to self identity their hardships the entire fucking time. They already got what they want, and what they want is to bully trans men. That’s why all of their arguments against trans men are so shit and easily debunkable given the time and sources. They don’t *need* the arguments to be good (if anything it’s not a bug it’s a feature, bad arguments draw you in like bait for a trap to waste your time), they don’t *need* to win you over to their side. Like, sure, they’d appreciate another attack dog if it gets other trans men to shut up, but overwhelmingly what they want is for trans men to be silenced. It’s no coincidence that one of the biggest adjectives used to describe trans men by these “transfeminists” is “whiney”.

Let’s also not forget that most of this debate shit is online AF. And they’ve staked their entire online presence in service of disagreeing with those in support of trans men. Conceding any point would cost their entire presence, and would get their followers to turn on them now that they’ve been primed to vehemently disavow anyone who breaks rank.

They insist that trans men just need to invent better language, and then they’ll respect and understand it, but in the meantime, they’re not pausing any of their current rhetoric or trying to find ways to include trans men in a broader framework. No, they’re continuing with the frankly transphobic insistence that trans men don’t face any unique vulnerabilities and don’t need support because as long as trans women are supported then all of their needs will be met. And as we’ve seen with the constant rejection of every term trans men have come up with (“there’s no such thing as misandry, so trans misandry is a bad term. There’s no such thing as androphobia, so transandrophobia is a bad term. There’s no such thing as anti masculinity, patriarchy rewards masculinity, so anti transmasculinity is a bad term. Oh and isomisogyny? Wow way to paint yourselves as the real victims of misogyny.”), like, this is deliberate.

When people in support of trans men do their own work, get their studies and sources in a row, these “transfeminists” constantly say, “this isn’t good enough, you need more research and you need to do better work.” And like. Being people who act in good faith, we keep believing them? When they’ve demonstrated at every possible opportunity and metric that they’re not acting in good faith? We fall for it every time because we want to act genuinely and these “transfeminist” bloggers are happy to weaponize that good faith to their advantage. They keep dangling this fucking proverbial carrot in front of us and say “you know we’re just like this because your theory is incorrect. If you haven’t convinced us then you’re just not well read enough, you haven’t structured a good enough argument and really you need to try harder if you’re going to get anywhere.” There is no collaboration, only animosity.

So my message to any person who’s pro trans men reading is that you should just focus on spreading awareness and keep posting without taking them into account, and don’t get into pointless arguments because wasting your time is their ultimate end goal. This is just their newest culture war bit, piggybacking off of the ace discourse, and the bi discourse, and the mspec discourse. Because it’s just reactionary bullshit yet again. If you change the environment then they’ll change even quicker than you, and then later act like they never did anything to hurt trans men or maybe even supported them.

this is Bad because its just wrong (men and women share more experiences than not), and contributes to oppression (intersexism, racism, transphobia)

It would really depend on the person and what they are looking for in terms of queer history, but how about we do a choose-your-own-adventure type answer!

Are you looking for a look at how we got to where we are today in terms of queer history?

Read: Magnus Hirschfeld or Maryam Khatoon Molkara

Are you looking to find comfort in the fact that queerness has existed throughout history?

Read: Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum or Sir Ewan Forbes 

Are you looking to have some of your preconceived notions about queer history to be challenged?

Read: The Golden Orchid Society or Rotimi Fani-Kayode

Does queer history intimidate you because you are afraid of it being a list of tragedies?

Read: The Ladies of Llangollen or Jackie Shane

Do you want to learn about the intersection of queer and disability history?

Read: Lou Sullivan or Victoria Arellano 

Do you want queerness that resonates with lesser-known/discussed identities?

Read: Kristina King of Sweden or Zinaida Gippius 

Are you looking for more information about names you already recognize?

Read: Sappho or Langston Hughes

Are you looking to be pulled into a rabbit hole of queer history?

Read: Edward Carpenter or Xulhaz Mannan 

Are you looking for someone within your region?

Read: Making Queer History by country

Just searching for an odd little slice of queer history to wet your appetite?

Read: Elmyr de Hory or Salim Halali 

Just want to know something new?

Read: Bajazid Doda or Geoffrey Bawa

Just looking for a story to grip you emotionally?

Read: Emmeline Freda Du Faur or Zdeněk Koubek 

and yet she wonders why we have no interest in her, it must be because trans men don’t want to date trans women, the fault must be with us. the concept that it could be because of her doesn’t even cross her mind.

she was not asking for trans men who love trans women, she was asking for a completely cis passing, patriarchal man, who happened to share transsexuality with her.

and this thought has bumped into another thought in my head, about these trans women who say they are simply women asking for support from the men in their community. a deeply understandable request that i see trans men meet with joy on the regular, gusto even. and yet, they look around and go, no trans man is supporting us, no trans man is supporting me. and i’ve stopped in my tracks in this moment because, support isn’t whats being asked, is it. that’s why the support given is dismissed entirely. what’s being really asked for is worship. it’s servitude. and anything less is seen as a failure at our social duties of chivalry. a failure of our manhood. a failure to uphold our side of the patriarchal bargain it has been implicitly assumed we must have agreed to in the first place.

a third thought has been bumped into. the few trans men these women do surround themselves with, are without a doubt, in every instance i have seen, viscously misogynistic towards other trans men and transmasculine people, and deeply benevolently sexist towards trans women. that is what is given the seal of approval. that is what is required. anything less than looking up, anything less than that high pedestal that unconditional worship guarantees will never crack and fall, anything less than feet kissed and sexual favors freely given, anything less than a doormat, a punching bag, a sex toy, is akin to community abandonment to them.

can a trans man experience (cis) male privilege? yes. can a trans woman? yes. and so can a cis woman! hell, a femme perisex cis woman with a gender neutral name could if she's assumed to be a cis man on a resume. male privilege is not an on/off switch. the idea that it is stems from cissexist understandings of male/female as entirely separate and static categories which everyone can and must be understood through. trans people in feminism are expected to constantly defend and deflect accusations of being Privileged Male Oppressors by promising cis perisex women that our experiences are just like theirs! we don't have any scary opinions that don't align with their worldview! we swear we won't ever make them have to reflect on how being cis+perisex has biased them and potentially made their analysis of gender at all inaccurate! trans experiences are only considered valuable to cisfeminism to the extent that they reaffirm what cisfeminists already hold true. thats why they only ever want to talk about a very simplistic narrative around wages pre/post-transition. its extremely unthreatening to cis people because it presents transness in patriarchy as just going from one cis role to another; it doesn't ask cis feminists to expand their paradigm to include the ways in which trans people are treated as a class and their own complicity in transphobic oppression.

which is why trans men have been getting fucked over by trans-affirmng cisfeminism. because by virtue of having our gender acknowledged, we are expected to forfeit our place in the feminist movement and adopt the role of outsider along cis men*. and its also why trans women and MTX people get fucked over the minute they cannot or refuse to describe their experiences through the one or two approved narratives. cisfeminism cannot tolerate transness-as-transness. it has to be compressed and reduced and diluted into something that fits within a cis-centric framework. we aren't allowed to have nuanced and intersectional conversations about trans men & other trans folks relationship with male privilege, the things we have to sacrifice to there, how fleeting it can be, the fact that for some of us being read as "biologically male" is actively more dangerous than being read as female... if it isn't familiar to cis women, then it means you aren't really oppressed.

"This judgment means that trans men can be excluded from men’s single-sex spaces. But there may also be cases where they are excluded from women’s spaces too, despite being considered women under the ruling."

from December 2, 2021:

On a Saturday night two years ago, Stann Fransisco was driving back home to New Mexico after visiting their parents in Connecticut. Crossing through Texas, they were just reaching the small, well-lit town of Stratford when they knew they were too tired to keep driving safely, so they pulled off the highway to rest their eyes for a bit. As they hopped into the back seat to join their service dog, they suddenly saw flashing police lights. Officers approached the car. “One officer said, ‘It smells like you’ve been having a party in here. Is that right?’” Fransisco, a white nonbinary person in their 30s, told Filter. “He said, ‘Well, if you haven’t been having a party, you won’t mind if we check your car.’” Moving quickly, the officers violently handcuffed Fransisco, took their keys and called animal control to confiscate their dog. Then they searched the car. “One yelled, ‘Show me your track marks, you fucking junkie! We found your needles and drugs,’” Fransisco said. The cop held up their prescription bottle of testosterone. “I said, ‘Those aren’t drugs, that’s my medication. I’m trans.’” “The second it went out of my mouth, I think ‘Oh, fuck’ … I’m sitting there in a sundress and they see male hormones after they’ve been waiting to get me alone because they think I’m a girl.” [...] “Criminalization has made it easy for pharmacists to deny my [testosterone] prescription, which has happened to me many times,” Artemis McGettigan, a trans student in Dearborn, Michigan, told Filter. “[Pharmacists] have told me in the past that ‘It’s corporate policy, they’re not allowed to fill that type of prescription … but I knew that was false because other CVS locations, for example, were able to fill it.” A CVS media representative told Filter that its policies “do not prohibit our pharmacies from filling testosterone prescriptions.” Prescription drug monitoring programs (PDMP) are electronic databases through which medical professionals and law enforcement can track someone’s prescription history. Initially designed to combat “diversion” of controlled substances with potential for addiction, they are often used to monitor testosterone prescriptions and the people who receive them. Many in the trans and gender variant community, especially those who aren’t fully public about their gender identity, fear being listed on PDMP—they could be outed by anyone with access to the database. L. Lanzillotta, a Virginia-based trans man and Filter contributor, recalled meeting with a psychiatrist who didn’t know he was trans and to whom he had no plans to out himself. But that decision was made for him as soon as the psychiatrist pulled up what he strongly suspects was the state’s PDMP. “She knew I was on testosterone after checking something on her computer, even though I hadn’t said anything,” Lanzillotta told Filter. “Naturally, she quickly deduced why.”

from May 31, 2022:

The idea that someone can be fully and wholly a man and still not be afforded the privileges given to cis men is foreign to most. The identity of "man" is synonymous with privilege and power, so when trans men say "hey I'm not as privileged as you think I am, there's more to it" that's unbelievable to most. They think we're purposely misgendering ourselves to gain imaginary oppression points. They compare us to cis men who refuse to acknowledge the privileges they do have because there's no such thing as a man that isn't privileged.