Latest Posts by bft-max-the-discourser - Page 3

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.

People will really act like talia bhatt just has haters because she's a brown trans woman and not that she's an asshole who covers up her caste status, lashes out at random trans women who she thinks are slighting her, comes up with racist theories about how all genders from other cultures are just misgendered binary trans women with no input from queer people from those cultures, and lied about the existence of a cult and the harm of its survivors. It's just because miss radical feminism: trans flavor is all these minority identities.

lmfao I guess everyone can just not care that the whipping girl author said talia bhatt was using "radical feminist framework in a bold and compelling way" as official endorsement to promote her book. Cool cool cool.

if there was ever any doubt lmfao.

(Date of the post is cut off but it's February 20th 2025 at 11:01 AM)

You know I was looking again at how TRFs see trans men as just people waiting to detransition and become terfs, and how you and so many others I know CANNOT get them to acknowledge that cis crossdressers exist, and it just struck me-

They think cis male crossdressers are either trans women who still have half the eggshell on, or men making fun of trans women-

They think nonbinary people AFAB are just ~trenders~, and nonbinary people AMAB are just women with one foot still in the closet-

They call forcemasc a malicious knockoff of forcefem and even get territorial about striped socks and shark plushies-

They cannot wrap their heads around the idea that misgendering people is still bad when they do it-

Oh god. They don't think transmascs are actually trans. They think we're cis women who just have such a powerful hateboner for trans women that we're willing to change our entire lives and alter our bodies just to make fun of them. They see anyone but a trans woman saying "don't misgender me" as being exactly the same as "cool and I identify as an attack helicopter" or "stop deadnaming me I'm not Ricky I'm Bobo the Chimp". Of course they don't think we experience any meaningful transphobia, they think we're part of the same fucking conspiracy as any garden variety transphobe. Jesus fucking christ on a cracker. Okay.

And honestly? Emotionally, I get it. I've got a lot of fucked up brain shit going on and the world sure does love to sell willful paranoia as "protection" so I too am always super afraid of how people may or may not be judging me and I've caught myself emotionally spiraling into some REALLY stupid places too - but my sympathy runs very dry, very fast, when they're out here saying that clearly the best and most liberating thing for them would be for me to get hatecrimed more because that emotional crisis is a 100% accurate reflection of reality actually.

Even so, fuck, doesn't it get fucking exhausting to live that way? It seems so fucking miserable.

Just. Fuck. I'm so tired. And I'm especially tired of how popular this view or at least "diet" versions of it have gotten. Sis I am just. I am just sitting here! Cut the truscum shit YOU seem at least as miserable for it as you're trying to make me!!

Yeah, that sums it up really well.

Average transandrophobe

An incomplete list of transandrophobic rhetoric to look out for

Anything that insiuates that trans men are uniquly capable of misogyny

Anything that claims trans men/mascs transition to gain something, things like male privilege, or to "escape" misogyny

Claiming that trans men/mascs transition for a fetish, anything that says they're fetishizing gay men and are only transitioning to sleep with said men.

Claiming trans men are trying to get into "women's spaces" to rape lesnians(I've seen this a few times from cis lesbians)

Vilifying and fear mongering against testosterone

Anything that claims they are "protecting women" "protecting little girls"

"rapid onset gender dysphoria"

Anything that's claims trans men don't understand their own oppression

Calling trans men and mascs"emotional, hysterical,"

This is also exorsexism, but slurs like "theyfab" and "zippertits"

Claiming that trans men/mascs don't experience misogyny

Claiming that trans men don't actually want to be men, they just "don't want to be women" this was used in the book "irreversible damage" and I've seen it a few times outside of that

Anything from the book "irreversible damage"

Add more if you can think of it

An incomplete list of transandrophobic rhetoric to look out for

Anything that insiuates that trans men are uniquly capable of misogyny

Anything that claims trans men/mascs transition to gain something, things like male privilege, or to "escape" misogyny

Claiming that trans men/mascs transition for a fetish, anything that says they're fetishizing gay men and are only transitioning to sleep with said men.

Claiming trans men are trying to get into "women's spaces" to rape lesnians(I've seen this a few times from cis lesbians)

Vilifying and fear mongering against testosterone

Anything that claims they are "protecting women" "protecting little girls"

"rapid onset gender dysphoria"

Anything that's claims trans men don't understand their own oppression

Calling trans men and mascs"emotional, hysterical,"

This is also exorsexism, but slurs like "theyfab" and "zippertits"

Claiming that trans men/mascs don't experience misogyny

Claiming that trans men don't actually want to be men, they just "don't want to be women" this was used in the book "irreversible damage" and I've seen it a few times outside of that

Anything from the book "irreversible damage"

Add more if you can think of it

And of course it would be ridiculous to ever believe that transphobia and misogyny could ever intersect in a way specific to their trans identity

"trans men only ever experience transphobia and misogyny" and as we all know those two things never intersect (sarcasm)

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."

for all it seems like they enjoy talking about how they're pushing forwards theory and advancing the understanding of transphobia etc by... let's see... claiming that trans women are the most oppressed and should always get priority, that trans mascs are bad and untrustworthy because men bad, and that any trans women who disagree with them must not actually be trans women... hm.

...despite those, uh, self-evidently "effective" methods of advancing understanding of trans issues, i find myself wondering.

do trfs understand ideas as basic as "misgendering trans people is bad"? like. they clearly understand "misgendering trans women is bad", but do they understand that it's because it's a specific example of "denial of the agency and identity of trans people as a whole", rather than because "men bad yuck gross"?

they seem to be aware for the most part that trans women are often treated as whatever gender is convenient for bigots and bigoted systems to harm them, but do they understand that that happens to trans people as a whole? that when, say, trans men are framed as "women" by society, it's usually not to their benefit? that erasure is, in fact, a thing that happens to trans people?

if the conclusions they're led to by their theory leave me wondering if they're aware of some of the most obvious, simple, and basic elements of, you know, transphobia... maybe that theory isn't very good.

do trfs understand ideas as basic as "misgendering trans people is bad"?

Let's ask!

@fleshengine Was thicced-witch wrong to do this, or do you still trust she had a good reason?

For optional bonus points, you may elect to give your opinion on this:

the main reason i am such an active advocate for trans solidarity and trans unity is precisely because i know from experience how much adopted radfem ideas hurts the trans community.

i used to hate myself for being a trans man! i used to believe i wasn't truly oppressed despite the very real transandrophobia i faced! i used to make "i hate all men too don't worry im sorry for my fellow men" jokes! and it made me fucking feel like shit!

as an older and wiser man, i now know the difference between productive discussions of misogyny, and straight up radfem bootlicking!

if i can find at least one trans boy like i was and help them unlearn what i thought as a baby trans, i would be the happiest man alive

Me: makes a post giving examples of malgendering for trans women and fems. Because I saw a post making fun of the concept, talk to my girlfriend about it, and decided to make a post. Let me tag whit a wide amount of transgender tags so the most amount of people can see-

This person for some reason:

Didn’t even say the word trans man, just tell me you’re out of pocket about a group of people without telling me you’re out of pocket !

Also, this comes from a misunderstanding because I’m dyslexic and use voice to text. I was talking about how Julia Serano dose talk about malgendering she just doesn’t use that word, if you go by the basic concept in the definition, she does talk about it in her works. She doesn’t use the word malgendering, not because the “concept is stupid”, but because it’s a word I believe was invented within the last few years(2023,2024,or 2025)! Way after 2007!

Also, what I mentioned isn’t just regular generalized misogynistic statement towards women, I was talking about a very specific type of rhetoric that used against trans people! Saying 

“Of course she’s a trans woman, she’s a fucking bitch”

It is making a generalized misogynistic statement against women and transwomen/fems, being transmisogynistic, and purposely affirming that trans woman’s gender by being hateful to her. It’s associating a potential negative characteristic about that person (even if it’s not true) to that person‘s gender transition/identity, and thus still confirming that person gender.

Also, fun fact about that post, I think the majority of the likes and re-blog on that post are by transmasc and men people! IM NOT JOKING! And honestly, this is something I see consistently from transmasc and men, because the majority of transmen/masc aren’t some type of evil monster coming to hurt you. They’re just capable of perpetuating transmisogyny as everybody else in the world, including transwomen/fems, they’re not specially capable of it. Also not saying that transwomen/fems don’t boost transmen/masc, because they do, because transwomen/fems aren’t some types of evil monster coming to hurt you!

But yes, evil trans men always hurting the poor trans women by being evil evil men being violent pussy man on a post about trans fems, that does not mention trans men(MINES IN THE TAGS), is the way to go to fight bigotry within your community! But you did this anyways, ways to go couyon!

it's amazing how some TERFs will just admit that their primary grievance is being sex pests entitled to pussy and they don't like there being less people to have drunk hookups with.

I wasn't going to comment on Thicced-Witch going full Transandro Space Lasers but now she is just outright uhhh

uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

oh jeezy weezy

this is a lot

RE: Binary Privilege, I really think youtuber VerilyBitchie said it best in her video on monosexism that privilege can be broken down into two parts; unjust enrichment and spared injustice. The example she uses is a bisexual man from a country where being queer is a crime being denied asylum because a judge does not view him as queer enough to actually be in danger(or even queer at all), while a gay man would be approved by that same judge because they think he's more at risk. The gay man is not being unjustly enriched, he needs asylum! But, he is being spared an injustice, namely his sexuality is seen as more real than the bi man's so he gets to escape while the bi man has to go back to his country and risk imprisonment and death. (This is also why I think it's important to keep in mind that being granted privilege does not necessarily mean a person is an oppressor or capable of leveraging their privilege to oppress. The gay man is not oppressing the bi man in this situation, he is just being given grace the bi man is not granted.)

So while I do think that binary trans people may be spared some injustices that nonbinary people have to deal with, I don't think any of that translates to like, unjust enrichment or the ability to oppress nonbinary people on a systemic level. And even then it does depend entirely on the situation and the people involved. I would be considered nonbinary by cishet people, but I use she/they pronouns, so I am spared the injustice someone who uses say, it/its or a neo-pronoun would face because mine are easier for cishet people to adjust to(even though a lot of cishet people default to her and ignore the fact that I'm trans, they are still using the correct pronouns). I am spared the injustice of having people treat me like a freak for my pronouns and default to the wrong ones because mine are seen as normal and easy to ignore, but I am not gaining any unjust enrichment, and certainly am not being granted the kind of privilege that would allow me to systemically oppress another nonbinary person.

I also think maybe it's important to keep in mind that someone can be bigoted without being an oppressor. Like I do not think that monosexual queer people are my systemic oppressors as a bisexual, BUT I can face bigotry and lateral aggression in the form of monosexism from biphobic monosexual queers. Like they can absolutely uphold my systemic oppression and weaponize parts of it against me, but they are NOT the ones who built or are driving the monosexism machine. That's cishet society. I think that's the what we see with like, transmedicalism and exorsexism from other trans people. They still aren't our oppressors, they aren't granted unjust enrichment or power, but they can still be exorsexist and transphobic and weaponize both against nonbinary people in horrifying ways, and they are also granted some slight privilege that we are not in the form of spared injustice.

I think conversations around privilege and oppression and bigotry are really complicated, and it's just important to keep in mind that having privilege you don't does not always mean someone is your oppressor, and also that someone can be bigoted and oppressive towards you without actually being your systemic oppressor class, you know? Or that's at least how I think about it, and it seems to help break down the conversation in a way that avoids too much finger pointing or semantic circular arguments over terminology that get us nowhere.

I like the scientific breakdown of "privilege," that's a very cool way of putting it.

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.

This clown's takes are so "funny". No, you idiot, hating your brothers isn't enough to make them pick you, and you should go to hell foe trying in the first place. Get a fucking grip

Transmisandry isn’t a thing because misandry isn’t a thing. You don’t get a special little pass because you’re trans. That’s an entirely different type of oppression

I'm nonbinary and transmasculine. I don't tend to disclose my transmasculinity nor my ASAB to anyone because I just don't think it's relevant, I just say "I'm nonbinary". I also have a relatively androgynous face and haircut so people have a really hard time telling what my birth sex was.

Today, I posted something about exorsexism in the trans community, and some random trans woman (and when I say woman I mean woman, late twenties), came into my DMs asking me whether I was AMAB or AFAB. Interesting how she asked "are you" and not "were you", proving that she doesn't quite grasp what those labels even mean.

I told her I wasn't comfortable sharing that because it felt like disclosing that would be boxing me into either "girl nonbinary" or "boy nonbinary" which is what society does to nonbinary people at large. She said she was trans and that "she would never do that", but I still told her I wasn't really okay with telling.

She insisted, and insisted and insisted and insisted and then brought up old posts of mine to... transvestigate me?? Like she was saying shit like "oh you said this and this and this so you must be AMAB" and "wait but you also said this and this and this so you might be AFAB, which one is it??"

I asked her "why do you even care that much about a teenager's genitals lmao" and she immediately lost her shit, called me transmisogynistic for "accusing a trans woman of pedophilia", followed that up with "I just wanted to know whether you were TMA or TME but now it's obvious", and then blocked me.

Sigh. Why can't grown ass adults on the internet go a single day without harassing teenagers and then acting like victims about it?

This is so weirddd... whyyy are people like this??

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

"There's no way this person I hate could face any hardship" is pretty common in TERF thought, so idk how these people can miss that unless the idea of a TERF is just a boogeywomyn for them

i wanna knooooooow what makes you half detrans. im sitting here in front of my computer, kicking my feet, waiting for an explanation (there is none) (it's just a roundabout way of calling you a man, in the same way they can call transmascs "theyfabs") (how long are we giving it until they start unironically calling you a trans-identified male, terf-style?)

also, aren't you objectively materially under bigger risk than transfems on hrt, under the trf framework? as someone who would literally be seen as a Faggot Male Invading Women's Spaces? what's your "yes woman, completely not on hrt" status mean in the trans radfem framework? (are they capable of constructing what it means for you to be in that position without just kneejerking?)

Yeah, lol. I try not to be weird about trans women with passing goals, all trans women are cool and should be allowed to do with their bodies what they want, and if that means looking as close to cis woman as is humanly possible I'm down with that and support them, but, also, literally every TRF would be as good as invisible if they walked into a woman's locker room next to me and they should consider that the next time they say TERFs are my biggest fan.

With this latest round of discourse being "trans men shouldn't complain about being kicked out of women's spaces", I felt the urge to write up a relatively long post regarding the topic, as I feel it is a long tangled mess and involves a significant amount of people simply talking past each other.

To begin, what is a woman's space? I ask this, because "women's spaces" often fall under one of three categories: medical services, social services, and social gatherings. Of the three, trans men need access to nearly everything if not everything included within "medical services" and "social services". These things often need to be considered co-ed anyway, but are still considered "for women" and often are labeled things like "women's health" or "women's defense". Social gatherings- things such as book clubs, concerts, festivals, and other similar outings- can have a nuanced and complicated history when it comes to the inclusion, or exclusion, of trans men.

As an example- I am a binary, gay trans man who has not yet been sterilized. If I become pregnant and need to seek out social services, I must do so via my provider's "Women and Babies" department. I am neither of those things, and yet regardless of whether I am completing or terminating the pregnancy, I must label myself a woman in order to receive care. If I wish to have a pap smear, receive birth control, or investigate my chances of ovarian and cervical cancer, I must do so via the "Women's Health Clinic". I am not a woman, but I must label myself as one in order to discuss sterilization options. Many trans men who have had their gender markers changed prior to sterilization have reported difficulty even booking an appointment, as well as difficulty convincing their insurance to pay for this appointment due to a discrepancy with gender markers vs gendered care. Many have discussed the realities of being a pregnant man, whether they remained pregnant until their child was born, or whether they terminated said pregnancy with an abortion.

It should come as no surprise that the statistics for trans men receiving quality gynecological care are abysmal. It should be equally unsurprising to hear how many trans men have died from botched abortions, untreated miscarriages, infections and cancers of the uterus and cervix and ovaries, and complications during pregnancy or birth. We belong in this space, despite it being labeled "for women", and the only thing pushing us out has done is quite literally what's been killing us.

This is, of course, not even taking into account the numbers of trans men who have been forced to become pregnant via their husbands or families as a means to detransition them, and those who have become pregnant as a result of corrective rape. There is a saying among trans men of my age- it isn't "we all know a guy this has happened to", it's "which of us haven't experienced this? who among us doesn't fear this? who will it happen to next?"

Which brings me to my next point: women's social services. As with women's medical care, nearly everything labeled "for women" as a social service must be inclusive to trans men. Shelters for domestic violence survivors, rape crisis centers, self defense classes, family planning, these are all things that honestly should already be co-ed. But, many times, they are exclusively targeted towards women. I understand why, I do. But with trans men being statistically more likely than cis women to experience the need for these services, it seems a cruelty to close their doors to a vulnerable demographic reaching out for help.

Where should trans men in crisis go? Shutting the door to us without addressing the reason we need to access these resources gives us a single ultimatum: detransition, or die. Go back to being a woman, or die knowing the likelihood that a woman's name will adorn your headstone, and "daughter, wife, mother" will be said in your obituary. Much like the medical services, this incomplete answer has lead many trans men to their deaths. Whether by their own hands, or by their attackers'.

But there are other social services out there that perhaps are not as dire. Women's scholarships, colleges, all girls schools. Girl Scouts, women's sport leagues, gym memberships. Trans men don't need access to these, right?

Well... is the trans man in question out? Has he been living as a man, or is he still closeted? Is it safe for him to come out? Does he pass, or has he just bought his first binder and given himself his first buzz cut? Is he living under the control of his parents, or is he able to freely decide for himself the type of person he'd like to be and the type of life he'd like to live?

You see, I was a Girl Scout once. And, if we are to believe to our core that trans men are men even before they know the words "transgender", this means I was a boy in a girl's space. I didn't know that being transgender was an option for me at the point where my troop disbanded, and another leader to replace the first within my local area was not found until after I had aged out.

But also... I was in 7th grade when my troop disbanded. Two years later, I would learn the word "transgender", and suddenly everything would make sense. Two years later, I would come out to my parents and my sisters. To put this into perspective, I graduated high school in 2010. The Boy Scouts officially allowed cisgender girls and transgender people of all genders to join all programs in 2019.

I was not expelled from my Girl Scout troop. My leader simply stopped showing up to meetings, and my troop disbanded to go our separate ways when leadership could not find someone quickly enough to replace her. But... if this had not happened, I would have been a recently out transgender boy in a girl's social service, still wearing push up bras and frilly shirts because that's all my parents would buy me until I became an adult and moved out and had a job with my own money to re-purchase myself a wardrobe. Indistinguishable from any of the others, outside of what went on inside my own mind.

I would not have been accepted into the Boy Scouts, if Girl Scouts had been taken from me as abruptly as it was from a different transgender boy in the same state I was born and raised. Which would have left me with... nothing. Neither. And the only reason I even joined the Girl Scouts was because I had wanted to join the Boy Scouts and the local troop had refused to allow me, because they had labeled me a girl.

I don't believe I'm the one that coined Schrodinger's Gender, but I do reference it often. In this situation, one is both a boy when it hurts, and a girl when it hurts. Even if that gender label changes by the second, the point is to use your gender and your assigned sex to hurt you.

But then, why do these services even have to be gendered to begin with? After all, Boy Scouts just updated to be The Scouts, and has removed (on paper) the insistence on gendering.

Well... I certainly agree that the majority of gendering these services is at this point a concept that needs to be reformed, but I'm unconvinced that we will be able to completely integrate without addressing the reason they were segregated by gender in the first place.

Women's gym memberships are gender segregated for two reasons. Women and girls- and anyone labeled as women and girls, regardless of true identity- are frequently not afforded the same access to resources as cisgender men and boys. Women and girls- and anyone labeled such- are frequently at high risk of predatory sexual behavior and physical violence. Both of these problems are symptoms of a larger system of misogyny at play, and both of these problems directly affect trans men especially those who have not transitioned in a way that makes them pass for cis men.

Regardless of the truth of my identity, the reality is that I was seen as and treated as a girl when it came to physical fitness, and thus barred from the same activities freely offered to the boys. Regardless of the truth of my identity, I have experienced predatory sexual behavior from cis men as young as 8 or 9 years old, continuing past when I came out and began to transition socially.

If the problem is not addressed, cis women cannot re-integrate with cis men. But, additionally, if the problem is not addressed, the choice still remains clear for trans men. Detransition, stay closeted, or go without.

A common complaint of trans men is the invisibility and erasure our demographic faces. It should be easy to see why this happens. The problem of a misogynistic society is one that continues to this day, and without addressing the problem we cannot hope for success in creating a more inclusive space. At the same time, trans men are being pushed out and isolated as they realize they must make a choice.

As for social gatherings, such as a woman's retreat or a woman's music festival? Of course, it may sound odd to say that a trans man should feel welcome there. But the truth of the matter is the majority of the trans men asking for the ability to stay are trans men who have been within that space for years already, prior to coming out, prior to realizing some things about their genders, prior to taking their first steps as men.

I'm pretty good friends with an older butch who told me that I am the first person they ever told that they were a nonbinary man. This person is in their 50s. They're married. But the wife doesn't like it, and they love their wife too much to cause friction in the relationship, so they keep it to themselves, and they keep quiet, and they don't say anything about being transgender, but in their head they aren't a woman. This person is not a woman, by their own insistence. Should this person be forcibly ejected from their local lesbian community, which they and the wife helped form decades ago? Should they divorce their wife, since that would make her not a lesbian anymore?

What harm is it, truly, to allow this person to stay? Social isolation kills people. The trans man suicide statistics are just as abysmal as any of the others I've mentioned here. Forcing someone to burn 20, 30, 40 years of their lives and their friends and their achievements because they are finally living as themselves is a deeply hurtful and isolating experience.

The majority of trans men asking to be included in these spaces are not trans men like me- who never really jived with the idea of womanhood and distanced ourselves as much as possible the moment we saw the opportunity. They are men like my friend, often existing outside of the binary, often with a deep love and appreciation for womanhood despite realizing that perhaps the label does not fit them as well as they once thought. They often have many years of connection, entire lives spent intwined in these spaces.

What good does it do to chase them out? What harm does it to do let them stay?

any time i hear the insufferable transphobic athlete arguments i think of that one time in middle school when my boys lacrosse team did a full-contact scrimmage against the girls team (who typically play with limited contact) and i, a six-foot, 180lb defender, got utterly laid-out by this 5-foot-nothing girl experiencing the newly-unleashed animosity accompanied by violent sport and as i looked up at my assailant from flat on my back i experienced a brief bout of heterosexuality and fell wildly in love and then had to be taken to the ER because i had a concussion

another day another post in which someone fairly complains about an issue affecting trans women, yet for some reason decides that this issue is Unique To Trans Women Only and probably orchestrated by The TMEs, despite trans men dealing with quite literally the exact same issue on a regular and public basis

I just realized why trans radfems piss me off so much more than cis ones, cis radfems are idiots who got wrapped in or concluded themselves that being trans is a choice and that the ridged social structures that need a police state to inforce it somehow concerned with biology, TRANS radfems went through a whole ass transition (while saying that trans is short for transition the same way that any other radfem does) and THEN somehow unlearned everything that they and other transfems had to deal with growing up or literally ignore the things that they and other transmascs go through now for some semblance of comfort that they think is more important than not throwing their community under the bus

Yep, they're traitors, through and through

Radfems latching onto any feminist post, even ones made by people they hate, is not particularly unusual if you view radfems as just highly idealist feminists who look for cool enough aesthetics sometimes without looking too hard even if its transfeminist. This is proven by actual transfem radfems generally rejecting any of the sorts of trans feminism based upon reality once they meet it instead getting some kind of half detrans self hating nonsense like our lovely rodent @velvetvexations does.

Radfems latching onto and keeping ahold of transandrophobia truthing is the telling one however because as a anti feminist MRA movement they could only possibly latch on it if transandrophobia truthers did the poor little afab song and dance every 5 seconds, which they do.

А'л ду юѵ ѵън бетер!

òkei, ai krieitìd ei nu orþografi for (mai daielèkt ev) iŋlìx sò nau ai kan enoi pipel mor

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

The drastic separation between social positions of transfems and transmascs is a theoretical invention of writers who spoke to very few transmascs and tried to fill the gap by assumptions that stem from the "opposite gender" crap.

"Transmasculine transition is respected in the society because cis people see becoming a man as stepping up" is one of the most hilarious and sad examples of that, but there's also "coming out as a trans man leads to less sexual objectification" and "trans men are simultaneously respected more because they're men and protected more because they're afab".

None of it is real. This is just a calculated inverse of what transfems go through. We should abandon this framework for the sake of something that's actually rooted in reality.

remember. when faced with the rise of fascism it is always the most important thing to start vitriolic and divisive online discourse about who is more oppressed