If You Actually Take The Threat Of Forced Detransition Seriously, Then You Should Recognize "Conservative

So, I've noticed a lot of people have talked about how the Trump executive orders mainly affect trans women, due to language used, and how trans men don't have much to worry about.

This, is incorrect, but I've still read the arguments from those who support this position, and I've noticed one thing in common - ignorance of statutory interpretation.

So, I'm here to put my education in law to use, and finally put to rest why these executive orders do and will affect trans men/mascs, once and for all.

Firstly, a primer:

So, there are three main approaches to statutory interpretation, that are relevant. Others such as textualism are mainly applied in Constitutional Law, and I'd argue aren't relevant to this discussion, so I'll skip over it. The approaches, and explanations/examples are as follows:

The golden rule

The literal rule

The mischief rule

Golden Rule: this one is pretty simple. It's the rule that one should interpret the law in a way that will avoid absurd results not intended by the legislature.

An example of this would be a law that says that no vehicles are allowed in a park. "Vehicle" can be defined as such: a conveyance moving on wheels, runners, tracks, or the like, as a cart, sled, automobile, or tractor.

A stroller used to transport children could be applicable to this definition. Do you think the legislature intended for a public park to prohibit parents from walking around with strollers? Interpreting it literally would lead to this, and thus we should apply this rule to avoid such an absurd result

Literal Rule: This one is pretty simple. As the name suggests, this is where the courts simply look at the words of the statute and apply them as they are written giving them their ordinary and natural meaning.

Easy example would be laws on how many dogs one can own in a household. Dog is defined as a carnivorous mammal (Canis familiaris). So, someone who has 10 canines, when the law says four maximum would be breaking the law, and you wouldn't interpret to to say four canines, three cats, and four ferrets would be breaking the law.

Mischief Rule: The mischief rule tells an interpreter to read a statute in light of the “mischief” or “evil”—the problem that prompted the statute. So, you look at what the law originally intended to protect and correct, say, 90 years ago, and interpret the law to reflect this in the modern era. An example of this would be arresting someone for "operating a vehicle while intoxicated", while riding a bicycle down a busy road. Sure, the lawmakers intended for it to be cars and trucks, but if we interpret it the way that they intended, you'll then allow people to ride bikes drunk, and that's a hazard to the person riding said bike as they could seriously harm themselves.

So, with these definitions clearly defined, let's put this into practice, with real world examples:

Keeping Men out of Women's Sports

Pop Quiz: which of the three rules would a Conservative judge utilize? Go on, give it a shot, go back and read over the definitions again if needed- ready?

The answer is: Mischief

This EO was written for the purpose of preventing individuals of the opposite sex from competing with each other. Sure, it talks about how it's to focus on "women's categories", but the intent was to focus on maintaining single-sex spaces, which a trans man in men's sports would go against.

Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government

Ready for another exercise? Which rule would be used here by a Conservative judge?

Ready?

Literal Rule.

This one is pretty simple. It says that spaces for females is only for those with a vagina, and those for males are for those with a penis, as that's the most plain definition of male and female as per the dictionary. Albeit reductive and ignores intersex people, it's still the literal meaning.

Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation

Which rule would be applicable here? Here's a hint:

Ready?

Mischief Rule

The reason being, is that these two sections had the goal of preventing any sort of gender affirming care for minors (those under 19 as per this EO), whether it be surgery or medication. So, a judge would interpret "FGM" in light of this, to prevent the absurd result of allowing treatment for trans men (as they're men and not females, and you can be sure that the judge will respect a trans man's identity in order to enforce this).

So, as you can see from these three real world examples that are often brought up in conversation about how these orders "only affect trans women", it's entirely possible to apply these laws to trans men and transmasculine individuals, through legitimate practices used every day in the legal system. Not every judge uses the plain meaning rule, this is a verifiable fact.

I hope this post was of some use, and has been enlightening to those who weren't aware that this is even a thing, and hopefully we can stop arguing over who has it worse with these EOs, because, as you can see, it doesn't matter how it's written, or what "gotchas" you try to find - because the President wants to destroy trans lives, he can easily do this, no matter how the laws are written, so long as he has the right judges.

if you've only seen the term transandrophobia through discourse, this is your invitation to think about it outside of a discourse context (for both people for and against the term)

there are many of us who use the word to talk about real life issues, though I can excuse you not knowing that if you've only seen the discourse and not any real conversations, since queer discourse has a way of flattening these convos, which I really really dislike

I also encourage you to think about transmisogyny and oppression as a whole outside of the discourse context, just as a refresher, since I see those topics being steamrolled as well which is sad

back in the ace discourse words like aphobia and homophobia/lesbophobia also got steamrolled like this. if you do think that trans men/mascs experience a unique oppression, whether or not you like the word, I encourage you to think of us outside of a discourse context. and even if you don't believe we do, I ask you think of transmisogyny and oppression as a whole outside of a discourse context, just to keep yourself from falling into the steamrolled versions

I think we should be able to talk about trans people dying without it being a footnote in online discourse

I guess Plaidos is doing that thing where she unblocks me to reblog me again lol.

Accusing me of pretending to be a trans woman is in fact misgendering me. I am a trans woman. I provably have a voice that can only belong to a person AMAB or someone who's tried very hard over a long period of time to masculinize their voice, so if I'm not a 'TMA' person, you must be necessarily be accusing me of being a man, although it would not be any better if you were saying I was any other kinna non-trans woman either, because it's still misgendering to say a trans woman is faking being a trans woman regardless.

You're misgendering a trans woman when you say I'm not a trans woman. You literally said me claiming to be a trans woman is the same as a conservative man making an attack helicopter joke. You can apologize for that at your leisure.

Extremely conceited. You come up on my blog fairly infrequently, but you have over fifteen times the followers I do and what you say has reverberations in trans discourse, so sometimes I get anons letting me know what new hornet's nest you've kicked off. I don't look at your blog because it makes my skin physically crawl. The fact that you're an Actually Popular Trans Woman on Tumblr, unlike me, means that you're going to get talked about occasionally because every time you say some dumb shit your gaggle of idiots is ready to enthusiastically vomit it at the other minority groups you call slurs.

Sincerely, get the fuck over it, you're either a prominant transfeminist literary analysist or you aren't.

It's literally a content warning, because you're a hateful and offensive person, but it's wild I should even have to defend that since 'transfeminists' will tag posts hating on me on a regular basis for no particular reason.

If you actually do go through that tag, you'll see that I tend to only ever talk about you in response to people bringing you up first, or in the case of you misgendering me, you talking about me first. The only real exception is that I made two posts about the Dropout discourse you blatantly started for attention, which was (a) still brought to me by anons since I'd not have known you were responsible for that otherwise and (b) a special interest of mine I was really fucking pissed off that you were fucking up with the bullshit that special interest was an escape from.

I'm not sending anyone to do anything, moron.

Your vanity is not charming. I've talked about you lately in direct response to you talking about and misgendering me. You are discussing me too dummy.

I don't think you should be transmisogynistically harassed, but I'm absolutely fucking not responsible for someone with fifteen times the followers I have getting backlash to things like defending a 4chan slur for non-binary people. Like, no, actually, someone taking issue with that is not on me, and considering what you think counts as transmisogyny, I'm not really sure I even buy your characterization of said backlash, especially if they're "directly referencing" anything I say.

Completely unsupported by your behavior! Do you remember when you were randomly like "if you're wondering what velvetvexations is up to, she's saying you can call trans women hysterical because they don't have uteruses" when that was not what I fucking said?

I've tried making the same "I'll never mention you if you don't mention me" offer to people who obsessively stalk my blog before, including people who I would never talk about anyway because they don't have nearly the same presence on this website. I've asked them to stop screenshotting my blog and lying about me and getting anons sent to my inbox as a result. I've reported them to Tumblr, who doesn't consider it harassment. Each time the people stalking me - which is what they were actually doing to me, unlike me occasionally commenting when someone tells me you've caused some new discourse - was laughed at and told I simply deserve it or bring it upon myself.

Once again, you position yourself as a serious transfeminist activist and you have the following to back it up. You have influence in the conversation around transfeminism and as a trans woman I have a right to talk about it. Tell people to stop parroting your every word, or better yet, entirely stop kicking at trans men and non-binary people literally every day. Like literally every day you do this, it's why I can't look at your blog because it fucking repulses me.

You don't do anything to help trans women. You don't care about trans women. You care about being cruel to other trans people and using that to prop up your own crumbling ego. I would love it if your opinions weren't unfortunately popular and constantly being widely disseminated among others, but like, they are, and it's fucking disastrous for everyone involved. I don't hate you more than any other dumbass radfem.

I've helped TERFs deradicalize and retransition. You will never in your life do a quarter of what I do for transfeminism. The most you will ever accomplish is being an aggressive contrarian who's too unoriginal to come up with headcanons that weren't popular with transmascs first and claiming it a win when you say they're too stupid and shallow to interpret art correctly.

I can’t help but think detransitioning is a form of self-harm for some of these “detrans females” swept up in the TERF movement. Some of them were never transgender at all, just exploring their gender and finding they didn’t like it. But some are genuinely miserable identifying as women and are continuing to harm themselves by forcing themselves into being something they can never truly be. I’ve never been detrans or bought into that ideology but I have denied myself gender affirming care as a form of self-harm. As in, I am still a man but I don’t think I deserve to receive the help I need to affirm that.

i’m not even gonna break this one down bc “male privilege isn’t a material benefit it’s just literally not being a woman” i think pretty much speaks for itself.

Wait what happened??? Who detected shame in trfs?? What tf is going down on bluesky?

The T/R/F made a post saying straight women should be banned from BDSM because they don't understand it

another trans woman and self-identified baeddel called it weird

The T/R/F went completely fucking ballistic and started harassing her and telling her and her friends to [redacted]

now other examples of The T/R/F saying straight trans women should [redacted] while also calling them "straggots" are being posted

i am cracking up why are y’all obsessed with calling jewish anarchists zionists (hint: it’s the antisemitism)

ofc the person saying intersex people can't be trans if they don't conform to the sex binary and mtf or ftm "standard" also recommends the platform that's actively erasing us intersex and transmasc people

and to archive their latest take on us:

Alright.

I'm gonna be completely honest here.

This feels racially motivated.

Because what do you mean by 'backgrounds'?????

Also (less bigotry more insanity)

How much time do you think I have?!

Assuming you also think I'm responsible for the confession blog mains, that means you think I'm responsible for

8 DIFFERENT FULL TIME BLOGS????

This is arguably wilder than the thicced-witch racefaking allegation.

Apparently, once they decided that i actually am a Iranian-Tajik person.

I AM NOW ALL ARAB AND SOUTH ASIAN TRANS PEOPLE????

Average transandrophobe