One of the reasons we have the (sadly oft-abused) idea of privilege and its checking is that people who do not live along one axis of oppression are so often blind to the lived reality of those who do. We understand it would be both ridiculous and offensive for a white person to say "I've always felt black" or "I identify as black," same for rich/poor, able-bodied/disabled, etc. But many, many leftists - who should, theoretically, understand that women are oppressed by men - are letting men who say they "feel like women" or "identify as women" slide.
Furthermore, how do you advocate for an oppressed group of people when the only politically correct definition of those people is "anyone who identifies as such?" How better to END a movement for the liberation of an oppressed group than to make the definition of that group so utterly, tragi-comically useless?
So here is where I ask the question that transgender identity politickers cannot tolerate:
What could it mean, for a man to "feel like a woman?"
Do women in this scenario have interiors, or only exteriors?
Are we talking actual, real live women?
Or just men's fantasies of women?
How or what exactly is it that women "feel" that men can't feel, or vice versa?
Hey, remember this chart? How would this not benefit "transgender" people?
To understand why transgender identity politickers object to this, why they cling to sexed labels for their personalities, we must address male fantasies of womanhood.
Let's jump right in.
In this article, Bailey and Triea discuss Blanchard's identification of two types of male transsexuals: homosexual (attracted to men) and non-homosexual (straight, bisexual, asexual). Blanchard posited that homosexual MtF have always been very "feminine," never fit in as boys, and "have a difficult time socially, romantically, and sexually, and their transition appears to be largely motivated by a desire to improve their lives in these domains." Non-homosexual MtF, according to Blanchard, tend to be motivated by autogynephilia, "a male's propensity to be attracted to the thought or image of himself as a woman."
[Other takes on autogynephilia here: Becoming What We Love, written by a self-described autogynephile, and But there's no such thing as autogynephilia!": Phone Sex, the Male Gaze, and How Blanchard and Trans* Activists Both Get It Wrong.]
A common erotic fantasy for males with autogynephilia is to be admired as a female by another person. Furthermore, discussing autogynephilia (which contradicts the "always felt like a woman" narrative) can cause those with it to experience "narcissistic injury" and corresponding "narcissistic rage."
Now, I don't particularly care about anyone's sexual orientation, but these two types: 1) transwomen who say they simply couldn't live as men-as-defined-by-patriarchy, who are just trying to live their lives without receiving harm (nor giving any) and 2) transwomen who claim they've always been women inside, who desperately demand everyone recognize them as "women, period" and lash out at anyone who does not - very accurately describe my experiences with transwomen online. To differentiate the second group of transwomen, I began calling them AFTAs (anti-feminist trans activists). Thus I could critique that group without painting all transwomen with the same brush.
AFTAs can be transsexual – those who’ve undergone medical transition – or, much more commonly, transvestites (cross-dressers). Their shared identifying trait is that specific combination of autogynephilia, male privilege and misogyny.
[Transgender identity politickers would have us believe that anyone claiming the label "trans" is above reproach. But the label "trans" doesn't mean much, in practice. Furthermore, even if a trans person is genuinely transsexual, that person is still a person. Just like individual women can be jerks, so can individual transsexual people. That's just the human condition.]
Transwomen who have effectively worked through their male privilege (all males are raised with this) and misogyny (all humans are raised with this), and who keep their autogynephilia - if present - limited to the purview of consenting adults are not a threat to feminism, because they are perfectly capable of both accepting basic biological terminology and respecting women’s boundaries. Some transwomen, like some men, are also perfectly capable of sincerely engaging feminism without making it all about them.
Here's how you tell an AFTA: when you ask him what he (and yes, I will use the male pronouns for these chuckleheads) means when he says "I feel like a woman," you will get obfuscation at best and verbal abuse at worst. However, their behavior will demonstrate the real answer is this: they *want* to feel like the MRA delusion of a sexually powerful woman.
For both MRAs and AFTAs, there are really only two types of female humans: hot women, and meanie feminists. All other women are invisible.
MRAs generally rage about both categories: 1) hot women who won't date them because they are into assholes and won't give "nice guys" a chance, who hold unfair power over men due to their womanly wiles; and 2) the feminist enemies, who have elevated women over men, who won't let women be women (servants) and men be men (masters).
AFTAs, on the other hand, seem to think that by "identifying" as women, they will become the hot women, and thus be powerful. When this doesn't happen - no matter what level of feminine beauty they might achieve, the secret (it's not a secret to feminists) is that presenting as a woman means presenting as a lesser human and as a target for unwelcome male attention - they are upset. But they don't name the problem as the degradation of women under patriarchy. They couldn't possibly have been so wrong about what life as a woman is like! Easier to blame the meanie feminists who won't let them be women (pampered princesses.)
(You might think there is a disjuncture between woman-as-servant and woman-as-pampered princess - if you don't understand that men view us as both at the same time. It is the feminine role, after all, to serve men in return for their protection and support. See gender analysis 101.)
For AFTAs, the word "woman" does not conjure up your average Jane just trying to get by, making dozens of compromises a day due to her social reality as a female person, but a supermodel or porn star or at the very least the heroine of a romantic comedy. "Woman" has never faced any obstacles due to sexism in the family, school, workplace, street, media, medical establishment or legislature. "Woman's" defining feature is sexual power over men, with no acknowledgement that in a rape culture no such power exists. In fact "woman" lacks any context whatsoever because symbols do not need context. Of course it would be fun to "choose" the "gender identity" of a jet-setting jet-skiing Playboy Bunny, right?
This is why "gender identity" is a useless, superficial, power-blind term that cannot stand up to the reality of women's lives, much less any feminist analysis.
Furthermore, just as AFTAs don't "feel like women" so much as they want to view themselves and have others view them as the male fantasy of a woman, it seems they also want to view themselves and have others view them as the most oppressed women on earth.
|The mathematics of privilege according to Twitter|
This is of course vital to AFTAs' political cover - on the Left, the more oppression you can claim the more unassailable your voice - but I posit this is also sexually exciting and emotionally cathartic for them. According to the article linked above, AGP correlates with masochism:
This makes perfect sense when you understand that a huge part of femininity is the sexualization of submission - to a dominant male, in return for love and protection. The fetishization of subjugation on the Left ("Oppression Olympics") mirrors the subjugation of women, and plays directly into the ideological totalism of transgender identity politics (surrender yourself to the
|But he'll settle for a Twitter fight|
Anyway, I really don't want to get into an in-depth analysis of AFTAs' BDSM proclivities here.
For now, I will simply ask: Do AFTAs buy into/propagate harmful gender stereotypes? Do they fetishize women's subjugation? And then, I'll let them speak for themselves~
[WARNING: some things can never be unseen]
From a selection of Craigslist T4M "miscellaneous romance":
From a transgender zine:
From various Facebook Groups:
Vice columnist Paris Lees love whistles and catcalls! Why can't other women just relax and enjoy???
From Miss Vera’s Finishing School for Boys Who Want to Be Girls:
Laurelei started the hashtag #fuckcispeople:
Miss Sudo's TL is always an illuminating mix of mental breakdown, misogyny and porn:
Porn is a recurring theme: "I was supposed to have a vagina, a vagina that's only purpose was to be fucked hard on a regular basis by a hard cock like vaginas are made for."
Sabine was the first person on Twitter to call me a hateful bigot and encourage his followers to pile on, all for clarifying the difference between "male" and "masculine." He was going by Trixxxie then. Good times, Trixxxie.
The heartwarming story of the transgender homecoming queen, AGE 16:
|What better image to advocate "no hate" than a teenager in a bondage pose?|
If you found any of the above disturbing, this won't help:
|"Secrets of the Living Dolls" documentary|
This is a thing that is happening. No worries, though, no connections to be made. Move it along, folks.
Look, I don't particularly care if some lonely guy wants to pawn himself off as a 50's housewife or some middle-aged dudebro wants to don pigtails and garters to be a "cam girl" called "Trixxxie." I don't think those are life choices that will lead to happiness for women OR men, but grown people make life choices I disagree with every day. Just don't expect me to believe that "identifying" with the role of submissive wife and/or naughty ho and/or PLASTIC DOLL - makes a man a woman.
Next page - Women are privileged: "cis"
More informative links: