On transandrophobia and structural oppression

First published in December 2021 on Medium.

I’ve been asked to explain why I believe transandrophobia is not structural in the way transmisogyny is.

First, let me say that trans women/fems have written at length about the structural nature of transmisogyny (definition), and you should really read their work before mine. Everything I write is informed deeply by the writings of my sisters and siblings, and will make more sense with those writings as a backdrop.[1] Trans men’s/masc’s issues must be understood by placing them in the broader context of transmisogyny, just as broader men’s issues must be understood by contextualizing them within misogynistic patriarchy.

Second, on the term “transandrophobia;” the community has not settled on a term to describe the phenomenon it attempts to name, because each proposed has its problematic elements. Other proposed terms include “transmisandry” and “virilmisia.” Transmisandry I take special issue with, in that it tacitly gives credence to the idea of “misandry” as a meaningful term at all, which it is not. Misandry was coined specifically in contrast to misogyny, as an attempt at portraying men-as-a-group as somehow oppressed by women-as-a-group, a nonsensical concept. (In this sense, perhaps “transmisandry” has some merit, if only to highlight that placing it as equal-and-opposite to transmisogyny is just as incoherent as equating (cis)misandry to (cis)misogyny; but attempting to use it as such would no doubt only lead to confusion.)

At any rate, it is difficult to discuss an idea without naming it, so I will use the term “transandrophobia” throughout with full knowledge that it is not “settled” terminology.

Defining transandrophobia

Briefly, the idea that needs naming is the way trans men/mascs are frequently derided in queer and liberal/feminist circles for our move toward masculinity or maleness. I propose the following definition:

Transandrophobia is a nonstructural uncritical negative reaction toward the masculinity and masculinization of trans men/mascs that comes as a result of living in a patriarchally oppressive society.

It encompasses the demonization of testosterone as a “rage hormone” or “poison” against our otherwise “pure” “feminine” bodies; and the uncritical positioning of all men/mascs as inherently being enemies to women, femmes, and other non-male/masculine people. This causes many trans men/mascs a great deal of angst and self-loathing and makes many reluctant to transition lest they become or be seen as enemies.

Another transandrophobic assumption levied against trans men/mascs is the idea that we all “pass” (I prefer “are presumed cis”) quickly and with little effort. It’s true that, as I understand it, in general testosterone acts more quickly than estrogen, and that doctors tend to start HRT for trans men/mascs at comparatively higher doses than trans women/fems, thereby making our physical transitions progress faster, should we choose to pursue them (which, importantly, not all of us do). Additionally, I recognize that our cisheteropatriarchal society polices women’s gender presentation — to include trans womens’/fems’ — more harshly than men’s, and that this absolutely places a higher burden on them.

But the idea that trans men/mascs can move through the world with the same ease as cis men is patently false for many if not all of us. Even after growing facial hair — which is largely viewed from the outside as some final and definitive indicator of our masculinity (problematic in itself, as many cis women can also grow facial hair) — many of us still continue to be misgendered. Besides which, not all of us are ever able to grow facial hair or choose to do so. And we may pay costs for the presumption of cisness, being forced to choose between participating in toxic masculinity or outing ourselves in potentially dangerous situations. Even with that aside, many of us are lacking in our ability to “blend in” with cis men, if we even want to do so — many of us don’t, or at least not for reasons other than safety. And all of this is further complicated by differing gender expectations and policing across and within race.

In short, presentation and the external gendering that results from it is additive, and encompasses everything from physical attributes to clothing to mannerism. The presumption of cis-male-ness by society, and the privileges that come with it, are thus complicated and conditional for us, a fact that transandrophobia ignores.

What transandrophobia does not describe, in my view, are the broader structural barriers trans men/mascs face in cisheteropatriarchal society:
We are frequently shamed for or entirely denied both gender confirmation surgeries and reproductive health care; this is transphobia.

We are often treated as misguided or mentally-ill women who need saving from our “internalized misogyny” or from the so-called “trans agenda”; this is misogyny — or if you like, misplaced misogyny[2] — and it reinforces and piggybacks off of transmisogyny by placing trans women/fems as the deceivers from whom we must be saved.

We are purposefully ignored and erased from media and public discourse; this is oppositional sexism (definition), as we break gender norms through noncompliance with our coercively assigned gender and thereby threaten patriarchal hierarchy.

All of these things are real, structural barriers that trans men/mascs face, but they are faced because of our transness and the intentional way cisheteropatriarchal society insists on labeling us as women, not because of our maleness/masculinity.[3]

Structural marginalizations

Now, with all these definitions in mind, I say that transandrophobia itself is not structural. I do not mean it does not have a structure worth examining. On the contrary, it’s been a recognizable part of many trans men/mascs’ journeys and as such deserves to be understood. What I mean is that it is not an oppression built into the structure of the cisheteropatriarchical society in which we are all steeped, any more than so-called misandry is.

In broad cis society, some women hate men, some are abusive to them, even; but no matter the power they may have in their unique life circumstances, women as a group do not have broad structural power over men as a group.[4] The patriarchy is all encompassing, it permeates every level of our lives. Traits viewed as masculine are those most valued in most jobs when expressed by (white) men — assertiveness, ambition, being outgoing — but are devalued when expressed by women — bitchy, greedy, annoying from cis women; and aggressive, power-hungry, and entitled from trans women/fems. Everything about women’s appearance is judged harshly, from physical characteristics to fashion to makeup. I could go on, but we all know the shape of this.

Transmisogyny rests on top of this as a further structural layer. Trans women/fems are portrayed throughout media — both in fiction and in public discourse — as vile, dangerous, and deceptive. They are painted as sexual deviants and predators. This is reinforced at every possible opportunity. Transfeminity has been the punchline of jokes and the “big reveal” of homicide mysteries for decades. Trans bathroom bills are all focused on how supposedly dangerous it is for trans women to be in women’s spaces. The public debate around whether and how to allow trans people to participate in sports centers almost exclusively on the supposed “unfairness” of trans women competing alongside cis women. And so on. Again, trans women/fem writers have done more and better to explain the ubiquitous and structural nature of transmisogyny than I can do here. I only lay this out briefly to make the following point:

In order for a thing to be structural, one entire group must have power over an entire other group. This is, by definition, a one-way property. Along any single axis of identity, if one group has an advantage over another, there cannot be an advantage in the reverse direction.

Transandrophobia cannot be structural, because trans men/mascs exist in a patriarchal and transmisogynistic society. To say transandrophobia is structural necessitates a belief that trans women/fems have a structural advantage over trans men/mascs, a nonsensical statement if we accept that both the patriarchy and transmisogyny exist and that trans people participate in both structures.

Trans men/mascs’ transness complicates and makes conditional our maleness/masculinity and any privileges that come along with it, but it does not erase them. Our transness is structurally oppressed; our maleness/masculinity is not.

To say that transandrophobia is not structural does not mean that trans men/mascs do not face the structural oppressions of transphobia, (misplaced) misogyny, and oppositional sexism that manifest in unique and definable ways at the intersection of our gender and our transness. Additionally, to say that transandrophobia is not structural also does not mean that it as a concept does not exist, or is not worth discussing, or is not harmful.

Especially in queer circles, an uncritical, sweeping negativity toward maleness/masculinity is an issue that has caused harm. Trans men/mascs are often made to feel shame for wanting to transition, or for simply being men/mascs, and this has caused many to live with deep self-loathing for nothing more than being men/mascs. It’s caused people to delay transitioning; it’s caused death. Our struggles are frequently ignored, minimized, or actively rejected by those who uncritically view us as the same as cis men, when we are, in fact, marginalized in ways cis men never could be, because though we are men/mascs, we are still trans, and the cisheteropatriarchy cannot abide our existence.

“Transandrophobia” as a term is an attempt to name this dismissal, shaming, and treating us like the enemy regardless of what we have or haven’t actually done.[5] But it is not a structural oppression. Because though we are trans, we are still men/mascs, and the cisheteropatriarchy was built for men.

So why does it matter?

It’s important for us to recognize when marginalizations are structural and when they are not, because only in so doing can we deconstruct our participation in those structures. It takes active, deliberate work to avoid perpetuating structural marginalization.

If trans men/mascs continue to believe our oppressions are directly equivalent to trans women/fems’, we deprive ourselves of the ability to extricate ourselves from their oppression and work against it. We will find ourselves continually attempting to hijack the narrative whenever someone rightly brings up the ingrained, structural oppression of transmisogyny, much as many cis men do when they speak over women (cis or trans), especially during discussions of feminist concerns. We will continue to reject criticism and respond with fragility when called out for how our actions contribute to misogyny and transmisogyny, and will continue to resist suggestions that our mistakes may have greater weight against our sisters than theirs against us.

It is a frequent tool of white supremacy to subsume identities into larger categories in order to both water down the specific experiences and claim the oppression of unique, marginalized subgroups. When trans men/mascs claim the things I have here defined as transphobia, oppositional sexism, and transandrophobia as a single structural oppression, we engage in that tendency.

If we want to support our trans women/fem sisters and siblings, trans men/mascs must take responsibility for our structural privilege and power relative to them, no matter how conditional and shifting they may be.

Footnotes:

[1] Start with the book “Whipping Girl” by Julia Serano, in which she first coined the term and laid out the framework of transmisogyny theory. I also recommend the articles “We Need To Talk About Transmisogyny” and “Transmisogyny: what it is and how to spot it in discussions of women’s spaces and trans women’s socialization.” And you should watch “Disclosure,” a documentary on Netflix that takes a long, hard look at the transmisogyny present in film since its invention — though it does not name it as such, the consistent portrayal of trans women/fems as deceitful and violent fits the term exactly.

[2] Cisheteropatriarchy polices bodies differently depending on their coercively assigned genders. I conceptualize it in the following way, though I know this is far from universally accepted: Society polices trans men/mascs’ gender by labeling us women (or failures of women, but still women) and heaping misogyny on us despite our reality as men/mascs. It polices trans women by stripping them of their dignity and viewing them as less than women. Society sees trans men/mascs as women no matter what we do, and often as disgusting for what we choose to do with our bodies and for being “too masculine” in our supposed womanhood (even more so for Black trans men/mascs). But society sees trans women/fems always as failed men and less than either, even before they may choose to transition. This is why I say trans men/mascs face (misplaced) misogyny despite not being women, while trans women/fems face misogyny and transmisogyny as women.

[3] It’s possible that this intersection of coercively assigned gender and transphobia could also benefit from a unique name. But I believe it is a separate issue. I do not believe something that centers “andro,” “virile,” or masculinizing in general is appropriate, as the hatred still centers on the way society polices our supposed womanhood, not on the masculinization itself.

[4] It should be noted that racialization complicates this oversimplified narrative in important ways. White women do have power over Black men, for example, and Black women are doubly subjugated. It should also be noted that the presumption of innocence and purity on which white cis women can rely to exert specific power over Black men is not extended to trans women/fems — who, as a basic tenet of transmisogyny, are systemically viewed as predatory, deviant, and dangerous. However, all white people benefit from white supremacy and therefore do have systemic power over all Black people. It’s complicated, but it is fair to say that as broad, sweeping groups, women of all races as a whole do not have structural power over men of all races as a whole.

[5] It is all too easy for trans men/mascs to use this framing to excuse bad behavior or avoid looking at how we participate in and benefit from transmisogyny and the patriarchy. It’s common for trans men/mascs to act as the enemy and then be treated accordingly, refuse correction due to fragility, and then become a self-fulfilled example of the very thing they reacted against being called. This mirrors cis male fragility in disturbing ways and is, unequivocally, not something I condone.