Can We Please Stop Using Certain Names To Mock Trans Men, Nonbinary People And Trans Women Yet. Like

It's kinda hard to not beef with your own community when people from that community are currently mad at you for existing and talking about your problems. Besides that people in the "anti-transmasculinity" crowd do talk about the issues that trans men & mascs face in society as a whole, not just from other trans people

This is the same logic as "takes two to tango". Refusing to mention intracommunity issues doesn't end those issues or unite the community, it just allows them to fester and for your experiences to be erased against. If you don't fight, yoy're sure to be beaten

If you understand as a trans man/transmasc etc. how upsetting it is to claim that trans men/transmascs etc. are especially and uniquely capable of transmisogyny you should then understand how upsetting it is to claim that trans women/transfems etc. are especially and uniquely capable of anti-transmasculinity.

Cis, perisex people are the main perpetrators of transphobia.

People are going to see "anti-transmasculinity" as transmisogynistic if you spend all your energy on your page complaining about the minority of trans women/ transfems who perpetuate it. And lets be honest, it's easier to call out trans women/ transfems because the internet loves to turn it's backs on trans women/ transfems rather than the cis people saying heinous transphobic shit. They are going to get the wrong idea of this term.

Stop engaging and feeding into the lateral violence and division of our communities. It is not helping anyone, and especially not our cause.

If you see a trans man speak up about his community in a discussion he has every right to be in, and your first instinct is to tell him he sounds like an MRA saying "What about men," then you are not an ally to trans men.

When you talk about trans history that impacted and impacts trans men, expect trans men to speak up about themselves. When you talk about reproductive justice, expect trans men to talk about themselves. When you talk about living under the patriarchy as a marginalized gender, expect trans men to speak up about themselves.

(I mean this in a very broad sense. Of course, when trans women are talking about things that are largely unique to them, bringing up trans men may not be the best way to engage with the conversation)

But anyway, the difference between Conservative MRA saying "What about men", and trans men voicing their experiences in conversations they are a part of (but have been forgotten in) is that MRA's purpose is to entirely ignore intersectional feminism. They want to say "Men have it bad too, so women need to stop complaining." They have no interest in a productive discussion that benefits themselves, and the women they are arguing with.

Trans men just want to be heard. We want to add to the conversation. We have a place in the conversation because we are a marginalized gender. We do not want to speak over anyone because our motivation is to not say "But we have it bad too, so stop complaining." Our motivation is to say "We have this same experience because we are a marginalized gender too."

If you can't distinguish between a trans man desperate to be listened to about his own issues for once, and cis men desperate to shut women up, then you need to reflect on your allyship

If transmascs were saying "erm transfems being v-coded is just as bad as my dysphoria over not having balls" then people would lose their shit about it (as they should, because it's objectively not true and also an incredibly transmisogynistic thing to say), but somehow it's okay for TRFs to pull out the pitchforks when transmascs say that forced pregnancy as a form of detransition is worse than womb dysphoria???

The double-standards in this community baffle me.

It actually really bothers me how most people are way more willing to listen to TERFs who claim to be detransitioned trans men who initially transitioned for all the TERF talking point reasons (wanting to escape misogyny, just not loving their bodies enough, hating women/femininity, peer pressure, manipulation by doctors etc) than to actual trans men.

It reminds me of the satanic panic when you had all these people claiming to be former members of satanic cults who went around giving interviews about how they used to kill babies in evil satanic orgy rituals but then they saw the error in their ways, started going to church & now they're on a heroic mission to save other people from going down that road that definitely exists. Meanwhile the actual satanists at the time were doing none of that. But of course nobody ever talked to them. Because the truth wasn't as dramatic.

It's the worst when other trans people do it & spread transphobic conspiracy theories about transmisogynistic trans men siding with radfems, being seduced by their ideology enough to detransition & then become TERFs.

Oh where did you hear about that being a thing that happens enough to be a common trend? From TERFs who claim they used to be trans men but then detransitioned after learning that radfeminism is the truth & the light? Of course, they sure have no reason to be lying about that. Especially when they are random anonymous people online. I can totally see why you'd choose to believe what fucking TERFs tell you about the experiences of your fellow trans people, sure, why the fuck not?

It doesn't mean anything btw if you say "terfs dni" but still say all of the same things they do. Just so you know.

i’m not even gonna break this one down bc “male privilege isn’t a material benefit it’s just literally not being a woman” i think pretty much speaks for itself.

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.

It took me forever to figure out how anyone could reasonably claim that trans men weren’t directly targeted by the EO about “protecting women and girls from gender ideology” until I thought about how that phrasing would be interpreted if you’re thinking of trans women and only trans women. Now I’m slightly less irritated with people saying only trans women are gonna get hit by the EOs and switching from “are you fucking for real right now, like are you just pretending this isn’t even here” to “hey I thought about how this would apply to trans women, can you do the same for trans men?”

If your focus is solely on trans women, “protecting women and girls from gender ideology” means not letting trans women into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms, which is enforced by forcibly detransitioning them legally and socially. The idea being to “protect” cis women from trans women existing near them.

If you focus on trans men tho, “protecting women and girls from gender ideology” means denying them any sort of medical transition and then forcibly detransitioning them legally and socially because the “women” you’re trying to “protect” are both the trans men themselves and the egg transmascs near them who might consider transitioning because they now see it as an option. (See: the common rhetoric of trans men perpetuating a “social contagion” and giving your “daughters” “ROGD.”). This is also why it mentions FGM; they’re not talking about actual female genital mutilation, they’re talking about transmasculine bottom surgery. Phalloplasty is like +$100k and no insurance covers it, so basically anyone who was saving up for it just got told to go fuck themselves.

Not to mention no matter what their ASAB was, nonbinary people are going to be hit but in a way that lumps them in with trans women and trans men based on ASAB. They are just as screwed as the rest of us.

I’m just saying, it would help so much if y’all would just read something and think about how it affects multiple different types of people.

Leftists: Everyone is a little bigoted. Bigotry is deeply integrated into our society. Everyone picks up on it. You have to actively unlearn it. Check your bias. Your intentions might be good, but you're not immune to bigotry learnt since childhood. Even if you're an activist already. Even if you have friends from the minority. Listen to marginalized voices. Take the critisism. This is the only way to overcome our internalized prejudices.

Jews: Hey so–

Leftists: ZIONIST!!

Wait what happened??? Who detected shame in trfs?? What tf is going down on bluesky?

The T/R/F made a post saying straight women should be banned from BDSM because they don't understand it

another trans woman and self-identified baeddel called it weird

The T/R/F went completely fucking ballistic and started harassing her and telling her and her friends to [redacted]

now other examples of The T/R/F saying straight trans women should [redacted] while also calling them "straggots" are being posted