Calling Me A Transandrobro Who Believes In Some Kind Of Ideology Is Like Calling The Kid Who Pointed

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.

It's genuinely impressive how people will refuse to engage in any way that isn't hate, vilify their opponents, demand that you never speak unless it's about them and in the way they personally approve* Or Else, spread posts with every kind of baseless accusation and dogwhistle, defend bigots who want to see you drop dead, completely deny you the ability to even say something to defend yourself against them, and then claim that they are being erased by you. Genuinely, the only other place where I've seen these attitudes with such force was a Christian doomsday cult

*you will still be punished for speaking at all, but who knows, if you avoid enough Bad Words maybe they'll let you off easy

since someone wanted to be a clown and make a "transmisogyny" bingo board, i made my own transandrophobia bingo board

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

ofc the person saying intersex people can't be trans if they don't conform to the sex binary and mtf or ftm "standard" also recommends the platform that's actively erasing us intersex and transmasc people

and to archive their latest take on us:

it's actually crazy to me the way people will just say regular 2014 style truscum shit except change "fakers" and "fetishists" and "hurting trans people" to "theyfabs" and "internalized transmisogyny" and "hurting trans women" & everyone eats that shit up like they're starving. I thought we learned but yall really are just memorizing buzzwords huh

I love the Marxist-Leninist trend of calling anyone they don't like either a fascist or a liberal

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.

can I say something mean. I think the obsession some guys have with """transandrophobia""" is just like, they thought transitioning would magically make gender not a prison. and then they continue to experience gender (which is a prison) and get confused because they stopped being a woman shouldn't it all be better now??? and it's not (because gender is a prison, even if conforming with it gives you privilege over others) but they lack the introspection and awareness to make that connection. so instead they go "no it must be the trans women who are oppressing me"

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