Idk Man, If You're A Cis Girl Who's Reblogged/posted Over 100+ Trans Discourse Posts, A Pretty Decent

So I recently saw this post about a video where a woman is saying "trans men are men because this one trans man yapped at me for ages about a history topic I didn't ask about" and while that post does bring up really good points ("is it mansplaining or is it just a man talking about a topic you aren't interested in"), I'd like to point out how this is actually one of the functions of transandrophobia.

It takes a very neutral behaviour - talking at length about a topic of interest - and, because of our gender identity as men or masculine, it takes that behaviour and turns it into something seen as "annoying" or "cringe" and demonises it as a specifically male behaviour.

It's malgendering as well, "trans men really are men because they're doing this thing I perceive as negatively associated with cis men".

There is something to say about how, within the context of the video, it didn't seem like the actual dude was "mansplaining" - which is a real misogynistic behaviour. But the post linked talks about that in depth so I'll only briefly touch on it here.

There is a difference between talking down to someone you perceive as less knowledgeable (in the case of mansplaining, men talking down to women because they see them as unintelligent due to misogyny, especially about a subject the woman does have an understanding of), and just talking at length about a topic that someone isn't interested in.

The latter of course gets twisted into misogynistic and annoying/cringe behaviour literally due to the person's gender identity.

And of course all that is to say, actually maybe you should let trans men speak because we are more erased and invisible than even cis women. Why are you (person in the video), as a cis person, putting negative gender stereotypes onto a trans person?

If hatred is what fuels your activism, then your activism is probably bullshit

Gee, I’d like to never have to mention having been AFAB again. If only it weren’t painfully relevant to how laws are applied to me and how the past has shaped me and how transphobes perceive me and

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.

helpful venn diagram of people who are against the term transandrophobia for those of you who arent aware of whats going on right now

hate people wanting to shut down conversations about transandrophobia say that trans men and mascs "measurably" experience less violence than trans women and fems

one of the core aspects of transandrophobia is erasure. the rates of violence we face cannot be "measurably" different than anything, because the rates of violence we face are deliberately not measured and erased whenever posssible

If hatred is what fuels your activism, then your activism is probably bullshit

It took me forever to figure out how anyone could reasonably claim that trans men weren’t directly targeted by the EO about “protecting women and girls from gender ideology” until I thought about how that phrasing would be interpreted if you’re thinking of trans women and only trans women. Now I’m slightly less irritated with people saying only trans women are gonna get hit by the EOs and switching from “are you fucking for real right now, like are you just pretending this isn’t even here” to “hey I thought about how this would apply to trans women, can you do the same for trans men?”

If your focus is solely on trans women, “protecting women and girls from gender ideology” means not letting trans women into women’s bathrooms or locker rooms, which is enforced by forcibly detransitioning them legally and socially. The idea being to “protect” cis women from trans women existing near them.

If you focus on trans men tho, “protecting women and girls from gender ideology” means denying them any sort of medical transition and then forcibly detransitioning them legally and socially because the “women” you’re trying to “protect” are both the trans men themselves and the egg transmascs near them who might consider transitioning because they now see it as an option. (See: the common rhetoric of trans men perpetuating a “social contagion” and giving your “daughters” “ROGD.”). This is also why it mentions FGM; they’re not talking about actual female genital mutilation, they’re talking about transmasculine bottom surgery. Phalloplasty is like +$100k and no insurance covers it, so basically anyone who was saving up for it just got told to go fuck themselves.

Not to mention no matter what their ASAB was, nonbinary people are going to be hit but in a way that lumps them in with trans women and trans men based on ASAB. They are just as screwed as the rest of us.

I’m just saying, it would help so much if y’all would just read something and think about how it affects multiple different types of people.

It's genuinely impressive how people will refuse to engage in any way that isn't hate, vilify their opponents, demand that you never speak unless it's about them and in the way they personally approve* Or Else, spread posts with every kind of baseless accusation and dogwhistle, defend bigots who want to see you drop dead, completely deny you the ability to even say something to defend yourself against them, and then claim that they are being erased by you. Genuinely, the only other place where I've seen these attitudes with such force was a Christian doomsday cult

*you will still be punished for speaking at all, but who knows, if you avoid enough Bad Words maybe they'll let you off easy

it's amazing how some TERFs will just admit that their primary grievance is being sex pests entitled to pussy and they don't like there being less people to have drunk hookups with.