-
So no one is saying to men "you have to include trans men in male privilege now" because there just are not that many things that are explicitly Men-only they could be excluded from in the first place.
The two transmen I know are already excluded from sports participation (if they wanted to partake, which they do not). They take testosterone regularly and the levels are fairly high. They would need explicit rules to permit their hormone levels.
Last deep conversation with one of them strayed into growing up with the female experience, and being so damn beaten down by that prior to transitioning that honestly he's just defeated and traumatised. He just wants to live a quiet life and to be accepted as a man by those who know him, and invisible to everyone else.
I suspect the issues don't come up, not because of any failure for privilege to be granted, but because residual privilege is a kind of thing and there is none, no privilege for a trans man, worst of all worlds in a way.
You are reading a single comment by @brokenbetty and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
Velocio
@brokenbetty
The reason trans men are not talked about as much (or rather, not talked about in the same way, because there are certainly questions being raised as to why the distribution of young people identifying as trans is skewed so highly towards trans men) is indeed a consequence of society’s deep rooted misogyny, but it's nothing to do with "hatred of trans women" - a projection I utterly reject - and the only "Moral Panic" I see on this thread is the cynical portrayal of women as bigots, transphobes and right wing stooges just for talking about the consequences for them of redefining womenhood from a type of body to a type of mind.
It's simply because male and female bodies are not physically equal and society’s deep rooted misogyny means female and male people are still not socially equal, and therefore the inclusion of male people in the definition of "womanhood" has more significant consequences for female people than the inclusion of female people in manhood.
Of course very few people consciously decide to prioritise / enable male people over female, it just kind of happens because it's what feels "normal". Female people are structurally and culturally disadvantaged, partially from the realities of our bodies but mainly from the way society reacts to them and encodes power in male norms. In other words, the challenges female people face because they are female are implicit.
To counter that, we have explicit mitigations - spaces, opportunities and rights - that are defined as women-only (back when Women meant Female).
It's unavoidable this (implicit on one side, explicit on the other) should be the case because the only way to counter unconscious bias is to consciously chose to override it.
But exactly because these mitigations are defined explicitly by an act of will rather than encoded in unconscious social norms like our challenges, they are also vulnerable to being changed simply by an act of will. Hence they can be taken from us and made mixed sex simply by saying "we will include some men in this because Reasons", or even, as we have seen, by redefining the word Woman and thereby opening up all single-sex mitigations while avoiding having to give any Reasons at all.
So that's how it goes for Women.
But for Male people it's exactly the opposite. Very few male privileges or powers are written down anywhere, but they still accrue to male people through the structural and cultural biases that favour them. Male privileges and powers are implicit, ingrained so deeply into normal that many people deny it even exists.
And when it is recognised, the appropriate response is not to say "let's open up male privilege to a small number of female people who identify as men", it's "let's stop privileging male people over female".
So no one is saying to men "you have to include trans men in male privilege now" because there just are not that many things that are explicitly Men-only they could be excluded from in the first place.
Keeping a little on topic, male sports would be an example where it is explicitly men-only, but it's also an example where male physical strength makes an actual difference and trans men, even if included, are unlikely to upset male chances of winning. (And of course, many - most? - trans sportsmen choose to complete in women's sports anyway).
Hence, male people's sporting, social and legal existence is not threatened by trans men in the same way that female people's is by trans women. And that's why there's more questions being asked about exactly why trans women should be treated as interchangeable with female people simply because of an inner feeling they have, and whether it's right and fair that female people should carry the social cost for meeting this need of males.
It's not a conspiracy, it's not hatred, it's simply a reflection of the existing power dynamic between the sexes into which society is trying to fit trans identities.
One interesting aside here is that some of the few occasions where a male privilege is explicitly defined have also been kept explicitly male-only. Hereditary peerages, for example, have an explicit exemption in the GRA to ensure a male heir doesn't lose his right to inherit if he transitions to a woman, nor an elder sister gain it if she transitions to a man. I believe the Masons and other men-only clubs are also happy to keep male members after transition. And I think it's the American rowing association that recognises trans women as women for women-only races, but not for mixed team races where the women's spots have to be taken by female people to avoid one team having an unfair advantage. Heads men win, tails women lose.