I feel like the root of most discrimination against trans people is a distrust or toxic idea about men.
For trans women, it’s the idea that they’re “men in dresses” or “men pretending to be women”, etc. etc. Even if that were true, what’s wrong with it? There’s nothing! It’s the idea that men are all sex predators that drives this – that if someone is “actually a man” then that means they’re inherently gross and dangerous to children and women.
For trans men, it’s just the same toxic masculinity standards applied to cis men. That they’re “too emotional” or “too weak” or so many other things that make them “not a real man”.
Cis men have absolutely carried an association with sexual predation over the long term and we DO live under patriarchy. I think the biggest issue here is that you’re trying to force a modern conception of sexual predation and all of the negative connotations that has in the modern world and apply that to the birth of patriarchy, but that is not the order in which these things developed. For the longest time the men as predators narrative has been used as an argument for the oppression of women. The argument being that because men make the world dangerous women must lose their rights so that they may be protected by the right kind of men.
In more recent times, this was usually tied up in us vs them narratives that had to do with othering the types of men that do not have power in society (lower classes, different nationalities, racial minorities). I suppose in this way it was frequently used to further goals including “mass movements to kill cis men and cis masculinity, to enforce and maintain law that strip the rights of cis men, to curtail cis men’s involvement in all economic, social, political spheres of life” but applied to certain subsections of cis men. Because this is a community focused on intersectionality this point is particularly important to note.
However, you do not have to go very far back (in some places further than others) before you see this idea applied to all men. Usually this was not enough to demonize them as a group (I think it’s fairly easy to attribute this to patriarchy) except so as to suggest that a woman alone was intrinsically unsafe.
i did not say that cis men do not live under patriarchy. when i say “we”, i mean all human beings, i am not cis nor a man.
i’m not talking about this from the perspective of a white person living in the west. it is certainly true that white supremacy, capitalism, imperialism, settler-colonialism and patriarchy all work together to oppress certain classes of cis men. however, this does not mean that these classes of cis men share the same level of power as gender-oppressed people in their communities. and again, the oppression that cis men of these specific classes is NOT rooted in some fictitious shared oppression of all cis men. it is fueled by racism, white supremacy, colonialism, the imposition of the Euro-Western sex/gender binary.
i do not agree with what you are saying about all cis men being demonized due to being seen as inherently predatory. i do not see any historical basis for it. that’s beside the point, i don’t care if you believe this.
what i was trying to illustrate is that OP’s assertions are sweeping away trans people’s actual struggles under systems of power by falsely attributing the origin of their oppression to societal views on cis men. even if you were to accept that all cis men are seen as predatory, it is in fact transmisogyny that leads to the view that trans women are perverts or predators or whatever, not the societal idea of all cis men as predators that i’ve accepted as true for the sake of argument!
I am also not cis nor a man. I am also fairly well read on transfeminism and while the OP may not have perfectly represented the ideas of transmisogyny, he has come to many of the same conclusions as the transfeminist scholars. Sort of a “he a little confused, but he got the spirit” sort of situation.
If you read again I think you will see that I say the opposite. I say:
To respond to:
This is exactly the point I was making. I said:
If you read my comment again you will notice that I did not make any points regarding your statements on transmisogyny. This is because they are largely correct. However, your statement that
is incorrect. This is particularly concerning as that argument makes up most of your comment. For the most part the statement that all men are inherent sexual predators (that is very modern verbage) has been taken for granted for most of history. An easy method of accessing such ideas as they stretch back through history is through theology, where the very same arguments are used to limit the rights of women today as they were thousands of years ago.
In summary, I would caution you to read posts carefully and assume good faith in your arguments or you will not last long in this community. If you see somebody acting in bad faith the appropriate response is to report them. Consistent misrepresentation sucks all of the nuance out of the conversation and will not be tolerated here.
Removed by mod