— Fatima Aamer Bilal, From Being Unwanted Is A Language

It's like some people think intersectionality is a math problem?

Trans + man = cancels out so no oppression

Trans + woman = double oppression

And that's just? Not how real life works? Like you can't come to a conclusion via logic math problem and then insist it's reality because it makes sense inside the theory you've crafted.

You have to check it actually aligns with what is happening out in the world - Which is trans men sharing all the ways systemic and institutional transphobia targets us and affects us.

You can't just tell us to shut up because you like your theory better and you're upset our lived experience messes it up.

You can't tell us we don't experience what we live every day?

Hmm

I just saw a critique of “oh so transmascs can use a word which is clumsy in its etymology to talk on their oppression and we can’t criticize that, but TME/TMA is able to be criticized on that basis?”

And… it’s kinda different when you actually put these two things in context.

TMA/TME as a binary like cis/trans or multispec/mono or aspec/allo is on a first-stage of language creation, as far as I’m aware. There hasn’t been a 6+ year-long history of trying new words in the face of people nitpicking etymology while having the actual issue behind the needing a new term not engaged with in the meantime which proves that the word isn’t the actual problem and that this is only in-bad-faith in order to shut us up.

I understand the frustration, I even get a knee-jerk reaction to being told that the language you’re using is maybe not the best language (especially considering some of these people were the ones actively utilizing that tactic against transmascs wanting to speak on our issues; they’d be extra prone to be wary of this tactic). But a critique of the word choice itself being harmful isn’t in-and-of-itself a bad-faith critique, especially when it’s on a first attempt at the language and not a nitpick about etymology but a problem with labelling other people’s experiences as being totally exempt for them.

Like. On the surface you can make the “oh so transmascs don’t have to be perfect in their language but transfems do?” argument. But when you actually dig into what’s being discussed it really isn’t that simple.

"you don't get it, the usa is a fascist country full of government propaganda, and our rights as women and queer people are constantly attacked!! you have no idea what that's like!!" i'm hungarian 👍

— Tathève Simonyan, Colourless Musings

[text ID: In my corner of the world, killing is a love language.]

i hate you "haha men are so boring"

i hate you "ugh, why would you become a man"

i hate you "kill all men, including trans men"

i hate you "men will never understand the real feminine rage"

i hate you "trans men are becoming the enemy"

i hate you "men don't love like women do"

i hate you every gender essentialist radfem bullshit sentiment thats disproportionately used against transmascs to dehumanize us, frame us as less worthy, less trans, less worth listening to and believing.

man I just be talking about things and stuff 🐶

this might just be because i'm a tee-em-ee or wtv but personally. if i'm being 100% genuine. i think "transmascs have an innate biological want to return to their birth sex and become terfs" is more bioessentialist than "transfems are capable of hurting other people because transfems are people, and people are capable of hurting others"

edit: some dumbass bitch called me a nazi and a fascist for this post. btw

"TERFs don't actually hate men; they actually see trans women as women because they engage in transmisogyny against us!"

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but I don't think that "ExterminatetheYchromosome.tumblr.com" thinks that we're women because we say we are...