link to the article: I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out.

Content Notes: discrimination, transphobia/-misia, interphobia/-misia, radical feminism and terfs, invalidating rethoric (regarding gender and trauma), eating disorders, abelism, abuse, pathologization, aro- and acephobia/-misia

disclaimers: [please click to expand]

1. throughout the text i may use "binary" language when refering to sex and gender. i did my best to avoid it or to signal clearly that it's not true, but obviously it can still happen.
2. i'm also quoting or paraphrazing terf-y talking points. not because i agree, but to show in context how harmful they are and to what they contribute. i'll put them "in italics and quotationmarks" so they are hopefully distinct enough.
3. i'm primarily talking about me and my experiences as a binary-ish trans guy and how they relate to what the author describes. it's not my intention to sound generalizing or to make assumptions about other people's experiences.
4. i'm perisex, so it's not my place to talk about intersex people or their experiences. i just want to mention parts that struck me as (potentially) interphobic.
   • i'm using the term "peri(sex)" to describe non-inter(sex) people. i've also heard / read the term "endo(sex)" or "dyadic", but with criticism. "endo" means "within, inner, absorbing, or containing" in greek according to wikipedia, while "inter" means "among, between" in Latin according to merriam-webster, so i've seen people criticise that it doesn't really fit as an opposite and that it constructs an "inside" and "outside" group. it does however seem to be the most common / established term, there is even a wikipedia page. "dyadic" refers to "two", or a relationship of two things (says the dictionary), so some people don't like it due to it's (binary) implications.
   • intersexphobia or interphobia is characterised by a dismissive attitude and negative feelings towards intersex and intersex people. The phobia manifests itself as contempt, prejudice, hatred or antipathy. This may lead to intersex discrimination: excluding, insulting or treating intersex people differently (source). i'll be using "interphobia" because it's shorter. i've also heard the term "endosexism" to describe the systematic discrimination against intersex people and the portray of endosex people as "healthy, normal, etc.", but since i'm using perisex, i didn't want to be inconsistent.
   if you want to learn about intersex people, listen to and learn from them. here are some places to maybe start: r/intersex, interACT, article about discrimination, reddit thread with a list of resources
5. i'm aware of the criticism towards terms like "homophobia", "transphobia" and similair blend terms that describe discrimination, mainly that discrimination is not a phobia in the anxiety-disorder-meaning of the word. it's not like for example arachnophobia (fear of spiders) or acrophobia (fear of heights).
6. the author doesn't provide pronouns, so i'll be using they/them

---

I Am A Transwoman. I Am In The Closet. I Am Not Coming Out. by Jennifer Coates on Medium, 11.05.2016

i read this really good article/piece (link is in the headline and top of the page) and it made me think, so i wanted to share some of those thoughts! they might be a bit disjointed, sorry for that.

i do highly recommend reading it (and i'm bad at summarizing), but the text is essentially a diary entry in which the author describes their memories of growing up trans, why they decided to stay closeted and the discrimination / ignorance / not-understanding they experienced because of that - mainly by so-called feminists who dismissed the author's points because they perceived them as a white cis man.

obviously i can only talk for myself and my experiences and am only comfortable doing so, and the same probably goes for the author, so it makes sense that their focus is on transwomen and (perceived) cis men. nevertheless, i could relate to a lot of what they said and it's not just because i'm trans too. i'm also autistic, asexual and aromantic. and while i'm mostly perceived as a queer, somewhat gender non-conforming cis guy now, at some point i was (to the best of mine and everyone else's knowledge) a gender non-conforming cis girl. all of these factors led to experiences that are similair to what the author describes.

"well, of course this is not about you / doesn't concern you, you're not _____ (enough) / you're too _____." i have heard that quite a lot. not a boy, not a "real" boy, not a "proper" girl, not straight, not gay, not "normal". not sensitive enough, not reflected enough, not emotional enough, not empathetic enough, not sick enough, not traumatized enough. too autistic, too asexual, too aromantic, too "fucked up", too "weird", too functional. everything can be twisted and interpretated in a way that implies i don't have a perspective on discussions and topics, when in reality i just have a different perspective.

so i can only guess that a lot of people, who aren't transwomen like the author, feel and experience(d) the same. not just fellow transmen, transmascs, aro-aces and/or audhd-lers, but i'm also thinking of for example non-binary, genderqueer, aro-spec, ace-spec and intersex people, as well as a lot of other queer, BIPoC and disabled individuals. basically everyone who doesn't fit into the narrow, arbitrary definitions of what conservatives, right-wingers and terfs believe to be "normal" or "the only right way to be a man or woman".

Later during this trip I am having a conversation with my new friends about femininity. They are articulate and intelligent women. I’m grateful to be around them. Until I am told by one of them, angrily, that I am not really allowed to talk about femininity because I am a straight cis boy. It is not my place and it is not my territory. I should shut up and listen.

[...]

Do I have to out myself to be treated like a person worth listening to? To stop my cis classmates laughing at someone who’s reckoned with the boundaries and the dimensions of masculinity and femininity in ways they never had to? With the life I’ve been living for all the years I’ve been living it—do I need their permission to speak?

[...]

I am twenty-four years old and I don’t know what to do. Without reservation, I embrace the theory of intersectional feminism. I need it — we all do. But do I want to join social circles that won’t have me until I disclose my most private experiences? That will leave me on permanent probation or tell me to shut up until I lay bare every year of dissociation and dysmorphia and dysphoria? Do I need to be inspected and dissected by the people who laughed at me in order to receive my credential?

at this point in my transition it's kinda similair for me: i get dismissed and perceived as a potential invador in their space and conversation (or even a threat) because i look male, and if i want to convey why my experiences on e.g. "girlhood" still matter or why i belong somewhere, i have to out myself as trans. but even if i do, that may not be "enough". according to some people, my opinions on feminity, feminism, misogyny, etc. "don't count" or "take away space" because even tho i did experience sexism for example, or being shamed for my interests being "too feminine", i didn't make those experiences "in the right way" a.k.a. as a neurotypical cis straight girl.

it's not always outward hostility tho. sometimes it's just being ignored, interrupted or excluded, getting side-ward glances or jabs. that's one of the reasons why i don't go to "FLINTA*" (German abbreviation that stands for "Frauen, Lesben, Intergeschlechtliche, nichtbinäre, trans und agender Personen", meaning women, lesbians, intersex, non-binary, trans and agender people) spaces anymore. i know i'm technically included, but the last few times i tried, it really didn't feel like i was supposed to be there. don't take me wrong, i'm by no means against those spaces, groups or people. they are super important, most people in them are well-meaning, and even if a space isn't the right one for me, it can still be extremely valuable and helpful for someone else. it's just not for me, and while a bit sad, it's ok.

again, i'm only talking about myself and even among transmen and transmasc people, the experiences vary wildly. there are quite a few in my surroundings who feel very welcome in and get a lot of value from FLINTA* spaces, for example because they identified as a lesbian before realizing they were trans* (and some still do) and spent a lot of time in sapphic communities. all of that is perfectly fine and valid.

no group of people is a monolith.

Misandry humor is peaking and it is dripping with cissexism. Down cascade the gleeful tweets from ciswomen about how women are more beautiful than men — how graceful the female body is, how utilitarian the male. How awesome boobs are. How bad boys’ taste in clothing is. How incompetent they are emotionally. How they’re too weak to handle childbirth and periods. Neckbeards are the scourge of the internet. They wax disgusted about “dad bods.” SCUM rhetoric is revived with inconsistent levels of irony. The meme gospel says penises are just shitty clitorises.

i understand frustration and i understand anger and i understand that nunaced takes with less generalization don't fit on a sign, t-shirt or sticker, but what i don't understand is why people think shaming and insulting others is helpful? productive? fair? like, what do they think it achieves? rhetoric like that just harms everyone - regardless if they peri- or intersex, cis- or transgender.

• it shames peri cis guys for their bodies, can contribute to bad mental health, body dysmorphia and eating disorders but also discourages them from being emotional and vulnerable with people, which leaves no space to talk about body image or other mental issues. or to get help if needed.
• it also alienates them from "feminism" (i put that in quotes because people saying shit like that often call themselves "feminist" and portray their views as "feminism") and can push them towards "alpha male" or "incel" type thinking (which is more often than not a pipeline towards hard right-wing politics and fascism).
• all that is especially bad for young boys and teens. imagine being ten years old in this political and internet climate. idk, i get both scared and angry when i think about the effects this could have on my younger brothers.
• it also shames people who are attracted to men for their attraction and some trans people for the body they might want or have.
• plus the focus on periods and childbirth others trans people from the rest of their gender ("are you really a woman if you can't give birth?" "are you really a man if you can?"). same can go for some cis and inter people who are e.g. expected to be able to give birth, but can't. just don't reduce people to their "biological ability" (i couldn't come up with a better formulation, sorry).
• in general, every conversation about bodies that are being perceived as deviating from "the standard" or "beauty ideals" etc. and being shamed or harrassed for that, seems inherently interphobic.
• and
• so
• many
• more

luckily i wasn't online at that point (i barely am now) but the whole "masculinity is stupid, toxic, dangerous and/or evil" sentiment still managed to reached me, which kinda shows how prevalent it was and is. when i was still trying to come to terms with being trans, it made me feel like it was morally wrong - that i was either too weak to be a woman ("you just want to escape the hardship and sexism!"), a misogynist ("why can't you do/be [insert thing here] as a women? do you think only men can do/be that?" or a power-hungry predator ("you just want privilege and power to oppress women!").

transmasc people tend to get ignored in a lot of political discourse, but if we do come up it's mostly as "confused, mentally-ill and/or autistic girls who get tricked into mutilating ourselves" or as "traitors to the feminist fight and female gender who would rather join the enemy than fight them". it's exhausting and harmful and gets terf-y and gender essentialist / determinist very quickly.

(as a sidenote, i've stumbled upon "FART - feminism-appropriating reactionary transphobe"s as an alternative acronym / term [here] and i do think it's both funny and appropriate, but i'm unsure if calling them FARTs could downplay their unfortunately real danger. it made me laugh tho.)

They can believe deep down their feelings on who is smart & strong & reasonable and who is dumb & weak & dangerous are within their control, are controlled exaggerations and self-aware and performed, are well-examined.

[...]

Because it’s not a small deal that the words “not all men” have become entwined inextricably with male fragility and whininess. It makes it awfully easy to insulate the (largely cis-)female perspective on what males are. To begin a statement with those words—“Not All Men”—is to give grounds to anyone who wants to laugh at the rest of it. But here is the truth: not all men are what you think they are. Man does not mean what you think it means. Generalizing harshly and broadly but implying “you know which ones I mean” is an intellectual and rhetorical laziness that is not allowed to pass anywhere else in these communities. Because we don’t get to choose who our words and behavior affect, we are obligated to choose them carefully.

on a personal, individual level it's not just upsetting because i'm trans, it's also because i'm a guy who is (in my own aro-ace way) interested in guys. (mostly cis) gay (mlm) culture is it's own bucket of worms that i don't feel qualified talking about, but even apart from that, i don't like the implications and expectations of a lot of these kind of comments / sentiments / stereotypes. "men are violent." "men are not safe." what does that say about my (theoretical) partner? does that mean abuse is "predestined" and is it my fault i got in this situation? or should i never let my guard down and be prepared for violence? "men are unemotional." "men are incompetent." so should i just expect and accept that? is it uneasonable if i want an emotionally intimate relationship?

these kind of generalizations put down men, but also create simplified overly positive views on everyone who isn't a man. if "men" are the perpetrators, "non-men" are the victims. they imply "non-men aren't violent." "non-men are safe." and while that obviously can be true, it also contributes to the stigma, dismissal and ignorance towards people who experienced violence or abuse by non-men. as well as men who experienced violence or abuse themselves, especially by the hands of non-men.

in queer circles it's often specified to "cishet men", and while i understand the intentions and reasons (the terrifying statistics of violence against queer people, wanting to feel safe in the community, needing to portray "a perfect and unified front", etc.), it also leaves us vulnerable to abuse and violence from each other, more likely to stay in abusive siuations and to ignore victims.

i'm not arguing that "all men are good" and "all non-men are evil" or some bullshit like that. no group is inherently anything, because groups are made of people and people are complicated. we can talk about likelihood and probabilities, about statistics and math (and i love math!), but only as long as they are not used to spin harmful narratives or to dismiss peoples' experiences.

A person’s privilege is very often an explanation of why their beliefs are warped, if indeed their beliefs are warped, which they usually are in some way. But—it’s not proof of shitty beliefs. Those tend to out themselves by … being shitty.

[...]

What I am NOT saying is: “open the floodgates, let in the shitty male trolls!” I know the trolls—they have tried to be my friends, they have tried to sneak into feminist spaces with no desire to learn or listen. I understand not trusting men who loudly and constantly hold forth on women’s issues and refuse to accept when they are mistaken. I’m not encouraging anyone to trust blindly. I am pleading to the discoursers: consider that this insulation has effects and try to mitigate them, if your priority really is finding truth amid a muck of concealed patriarchal lies. Check to see if maybe you are saying things and reproducing things mostly because it sounds good and feels good and nobody is challenging them.

idk, i get annoyed when people pretend that the patriarchy only harms women and that all men profit from it, as if it was somehow built by a uniform male hive-mind and not by a very small specific group of men for only themselves. patriarchy punishes everyone if they don't conform and perform "correctly". like, obviously it harms women and obviously some men profit from it and i don't want to diminish that in any way - i just think there is more to it and that nuance is important too. factors like race, class, wealth, (dis)ability, sexual and romantic orientation for example, but there are many more.

reducing it to "men vs women" is not just wrong (for so many reasons, but also because it assumes that there are only men and women), it's also distracting and unhelpful! i feel like it would be significantly easier to organize against fascism, capitalism and the patriarchy, if there wasn't such a strong emphasis on gender. like, i believe that people have more in common across gender but within class than across class but within gender if that makes sense?

so whenever a feminst, leftist or progressive space focuses solely or mostly on "gender issues" without being properly intersectional about it, i'm out. while an important starting-point (to for example introduce people to systematic discrimination, oppression and unjustified power hirarchies), i don't think it's sustainable to stay there. plus it seems like a magnet for terfs, swerfs, radfems and/or femcels and therefore a repellent for me and a lot of the people i care about.

i'm still a feminist, but primarily i'm an anarchist and at least in my head, that already includes and implies feminism (among other things).

---