No Migrant Detention Facilities Are Not Auschwitz But I Promise You Something Does Not Have To Be Auschwitz

'transandrophobia is white male fragility' mfs when i start talking about the insane situation of trans men in the global south and how they're all useless westerners who don't give a shit about non-american poc.

Whenever I see people talking about trans men not being oppressed, I remember that video I saw a few years back when an older trans woman was asked why there weren't more trans men from her generation and she said they were still forced into the roles of women and took their own lives because of it.

men are so whiny and sensitive about this oh my god. do you not hear how misogynistic entitled and lesbophobic this is and also just what a huge loser you sound like. "lesbians hate us because we're MEN and not sexy butch lesbians" Well yeah.. obviously.. even cis men can usually put it together that lesbians probably love lesbians more than men, so why are you so confused? you expecting some sort of special pussy treatment? No one wishes you would become a butch lesbian, you are thinking quite highly of yourself though aren't you

I’m not gonna lie, the whole “what if a big, hairy trans man started using the women’s bathroom? what are TERFs gonna do then?” thing kinda pisses me off being used as some checkmate, because it insinuates that passing trans men would have any kind of power in that situation. If a passing trans man is forced to use the women’s bathroom, you know what will happen? Security will be called on him, he’ll be thrown out, and he’ll be forced to out himself as trans in order to avoid punishment, which will put an even bigger target on his back. He’s still going to be harassed. He’s still going to be forced into an uncomfortable and potentially dangerous situation, and he probably won’t avoid punishment anyway because the current laws in place are never going to favour any trans person’s defence over a cis person’s.

It also completely ignores trans men who aren’t “big and hairy” and don’t pass enough to be mistaken for a cis man. Non-passing trans men (or even men who look or sound effeminate enough to be suspected) who are forced to use the women’s bathrooms are still at a huge risk of harassment or even violence, especially young trans boys who are forced into their assigned bathrooms at school. Nex Benedict was literally murdered in a girl’s bathroom. Girls and women aren’t these inherently non-violent, peaceful and submissive beings (for one thing, that’s misogynistic). Trans men and boys get beaten up by them too, because most of us pre-T aren’t considered a threat, and we fucking die.

That’s not even to mention the trouble we already have in men’s bathrooms, because if we don’t pass, cis men will interrogate us on whether or not we’re “real men” and then sexually assault us if they discover we’re trans. Corrective rapes that trans men face is not something to be ignored, and I have trans male friends that it’s happened to who are lucky to be alive right now.

Bathroom laws will affect us just as much. The violence that trans women face is something that trans men can also relate to, and both need to be talked about without people categorising all trans men as “big, hairy, strong men able to beat up anyone who tries to threaten them” when that’s not the case like 90% of the time. Acting like passing trans men are just there to make TERFs look stupid, when TERFs are the ones who are violent towards us no matter how much we pass, is just diminishing our experiences.

Alright.

I'm gonna be completely honest here.

This feels racially motivated.

Because what do you mean by 'backgrounds'?????

Also (less bigotry more insanity)

How much time do you think I have?!

Assuming you also think I'm responsible for the confession blog mains, that means you think I'm responsible for

8 DIFFERENT FULL TIME BLOGS????

This is arguably wilder than the thicced-witch racefaking allegation.

Apparently, once they decided that i actually am a Iranian-Tajik person.

I AM NOW ALL ARAB AND SOUTH ASIAN TRANS PEOPLE????

all this "um these non-western people are ACTUALLY just trans women, they just don't understand gender as goodly as I do :))" shit really gives "there's NO way the ignorant brown people could've built the pyramids, it MUST'VE been aliens!!". but again I had a racist father who was into the flat earth, ancient aliens, etc. bullshit so I could just be projecting a little lol........

if someone from another country doesn't identify as a trans woman MAYBE that's because they're not a trans woman, NOT because they're too uneducated and ignorant to know about the concept of trans women?? I feel like that shouldn't be that hard a concept to grasp.

the western gender binary of Masculine Man and Feminine Woman is not some innate biological default that all other cultures strive to emulate. Y'all are just exorsexist, xenophobic, and very very stupid.

The thing is, they just think the Western gender binary is objectively superior, so it's supposed to be flattering when they insist that White people simply imposed third sex nonsense onto, for example, Native Americans. It's more "brown people couldn't possibly have strayed from the light of the true path on their own, they're smarter than that."

So many people really really really want Nazism and the Holocaust to not be about Jews.

Hey can we talk about the similarities between how this literal actual TERF describes trans men talking about transandrophobia and how the “transandrophobia isn’t real you transmisogynist*” crowd talk about trans men talking about transandrophobia?

“You want to be a man but you don’t want to be treated like a man” is something they both say!

“They want access to women’s/female spaces” is a point we’ve been arguing about for months (and none of them have a good argument for “are you talking about ones for reproductive healthcare cause I shouldn’t have to explain to you why we’re there” or “do you expect a guy who’s spent years in a social group and forming close friendships with the members to be forcibly kicked out the second he comes out as trans and not have that read as transphobic”)

“You’re claiming you’re more oppressed than trans women” is still false when a TERF is claiming we’re saying that but hey, they’re still claiming the same thing about us

“Transandrophobia is just misogyny/(transphobia)” is yet another talking point we’ve seen already

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that those of us talking about transandrophobia have been fighting against and to see it out of the mouth of a TERF I think should be setting off alarm bells in some of you. Cause some of you have been drinking radfem juice either without knowing it or while convincing yourself that you can make it trans friendly by just including trans women as women and trans men as men, and I hate to be the one to break it to you but all you did was trade out bioessentialism for gender essentialism and both are just as toxic.

I’m not asking anyone to self flagellate over this, but I am asking you, if you find yourself agreeing with the TERF, to take a step back and ask some serious questions about what you’ve been believing about trans men and tbh trans people in general cause I can guarantee y’all have been engaging in transmisogyny and exorsexism too.

*If you characterize this group as consisting entirely of transfems and no one else when there are plenty of self identified TMEs making the same arguments and one notorious guy that stalks the transandrophobia tag to make this exact argument, please just don’t say anything on this post.

It might be me but I dont think tumblr user LobotomizeMen would have trans men's safety in mind

So, I've noticed a lot of people have talked about how the Trump executive orders mainly affect trans women, due to language used, and how trans men don't have much to worry about.

This, is incorrect, but I've still read the arguments from those who support this position, and I've noticed one thing in common - ignorance of statutory interpretation.

So, I'm here to put my education in law to use, and finally put to rest why these executive orders do and will affect trans men/mascs, once and for all.

Firstly, a primer:

So, there are three main approaches to statutory interpretation, that are relevant. Others such as textualism are mainly applied in Constitutional Law, and I'd argue aren't relevant to this discussion, so I'll skip over it. The approaches, and explanations/examples are as follows:

The golden rule

The literal rule

The mischief rule

Golden Rule: this one is pretty simple. It's the rule that one should interpret the law in a way that will avoid absurd results not intended by the legislature.

An example of this would be a law that says that no vehicles are allowed in a park. "Vehicle" can be defined as such: a conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, automobile, or tractor.

A stroller used to transport children could be applicable to this definition. Do you think the legislature intended for a public park to prohibit parents from walking around with strollers? Interpreting it literally would lead to this, and thus we should apply this rule to avoid such an absurd result

Literal Rule: This one is pretty simple. As the name suggests, this is where the courts simply look at the words of the statute and apply them as they are written giving them their ordinary and natural meaning.

Easy example would be laws on how many dogs one can own in a household. Dog is defined as a carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris). So, someone who has 10 canines, when the law says four maximum would be breaking the law, and you wouldn't interpret to to say four canines, three cats, and four ferrets would be breaking the law.

Mischief Rule: The mischief rule tells an interpreter to read a statute in light of the “mischief” or “evil”—the problem that prompted the statute. So, you look at what the law originally intended to protect and correct, say, 90 years ago, and interpret the law to reflect this in the modern era. An example of this would be arresting someone for "operating a vehicle while intoxicated", while riding a bicycle down a busy road. Sure, the lawmakers intended for it to be cars and trucks, but if we interpret it the way that they intended, you'll then allow people to ride bikes drunk, and that's a hazard to the person riding said bike as they could seriously harm themselves.

So, with these definitions clearly defined, let's put this into practice, with real world examples:

Keeping Men out of Women's Sports

Pop Quiz: which of the three rules would a Conservative judge utilize? Go on, give it a shot, go back and read over the definitions again if needed- ready?

The answer is: Mischief

This EO was written for the purpose of preventing individuals of the opposite sex from competing with each other. Sure, it talks about how it's to focus on "women's categories", but the intent was to focus on maintaining single-sex spaces, which a trans man in men's sports would go against.

Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

Ready for another exercise? Which rule would be used here by a Conservative judge?

Ready?

Literal Rule.

This one is pretty simple. It says that spaces for females is only for those with a vagina, and those for males are for those with a penis, as that's the most plain definition of male and female as per the dictionary. Albeit reductive and ignores intersex people, it's still the literal meaning.

Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

Which rule would be applicable here? Here's a hint:

Ready?

Mischief Rule

The reason being, is that these two sections had the goal of preventing any sort of gender affirming care for minors (those under 19 as per this EO), whether it be surgery or medication. So, a judge would interpret "FGM" in light of this, to prevent the absurd result of allowing treatment for trans men (as they're men and not females, and you can be sure that the judge will respect a trans man's identity in order to enforce this).

So, as you can see from these three real world examples that are often brought up in conversation about how these orders "only affect trans women", it's entirely possible to apply these laws to trans men and transmasculine individuals, through legitimate practices used every day in the legal system. Not every judge uses the plain meaning rule, this is a verifiable fact.

I hope this post was of some use, and has been enlightening to those who weren't aware that this is even a thing, and hopefully we can stop arguing over who has it worse with these EOs, because, as you can see, it doesn't matter how it's written, or what "gotchas" you try to find - because the President wants to destroy trans lives, he can easily do this, no matter how the laws are written, so long as he has the right judges.