Previous Entry Share Next Entry
The difference between being trans-critical and transmisogynistic
Being trans critical means pointing out issues within trans theory and trans feminism. Some critics might call for changes within trans theory, other critics might call for rejecting trans theory. I think allies should be more trans critical.

Examples: "I am not convinced of the limbic-system sex theory." "I had a lot of trouble accepting my body during puberty, and I'm not sure how my body-image issues differed from their body dysphoria." "I am convinced that butch flight is real."

Being transmisogynistic means hurting trans womyn, degrading trans womyn, or supporting social norms which hurt trans womyn. I am disappointed that some other feminists practice transmisogyny in the name of trans-criticism.

Examples: "All transsexuals rape women's bodies." "Male to Constructed Female." "They expect we'd be shocked to see statistics about them being killed, and don't realize, some of us wish they would ALL be dead." "Surgically and Chemically Altered Male."

Transmisogyny, like any other form of misogyny, seems to be inconsistent with feminism. I discussed my view of feminism in an earlier post here: Transmisogyny often involves gender-policing, victim-blaming, and a hostility to harm reduction. Transmisogyny ignores the fact, which Dworkin pointed out in '74, that many, though not all, trans womyn are in a state of what she termed primary emergency.

Transmisogyny is one of the effects of what radtransfem calls the gender ternary. I would suggest reading her post here: The separation between womyn and men, the creation of distinct roles for womyn and men, and the historical subordination of womyn to men has depended on the use of violence against anyone who blurs the lines.

I can't regard outing, doxing, and suchlike harassment as anything but deliberate transmisogyny. Some of my friends have been doxed, and the doxers have often been misleading and sometimes been wrong. It's wrong, it's reckless, and at times it exposes people to others' violence. It should have no place in feminism.

[One of these sites has put up a list of trans activists whom they identify as "white, "formerly" heterosexual males." Most, if not all, are female. At least one is of mixed descent, but has white privilege. At least one more was asexual before transition, as was I, and at least one more was exclusively attracted to males before transition.]

I can understand the insistence that trans womyn are really men and/or really male, the refusal to use our taken names, and the refusal to use our preferred pronouns as an attempt to assert the significance of reproductive femaleness and/or an attempt to assert the differences between cis girlhood and trans girlhood. But the effect is often transmisogynistic.

Men's and womyn's names, and masculine, feminine, and other pronouns are basically arbitrary. There's no essential femaleness to she/her, or to feminine names, and no essential maleness to he/him, or to masculine names. If someone states a preference for a feminine name and feminine pronouns, using another name and masculine pronouns is rude at best. If someone goes through the world as a womon, using a masculine name and/or masculine pronouns and/or non-binary pronouns may out her and expose her to violence. It doesn't matter if she's "really a womon" or "really a man." I think I pass. I occasionally get sirred, [and frequently get sirred if I'm at the Philly Trans-Health Conference] but I think that has more to do with my preferred clothing than my body or voice. So I feel like I don't have to worry about the pronouns people use for me. But other trans people may feel like they need to worry about the pronouns people use for them. It doesn't necessarily matter if she's out on an obscure blog either. My point is, it's up to her to decide on her safety, and it's not up to anyone else to second-guess that.


Log in