honestly leaning toward we should stop using TMA/TME because clearly people are never going to listen to us about what it means or even try to understand its intent and as a writer I gotta admit that at some point it’s the language’s fault for not being clear enough. thoughts?
And, do you think that any of them are able to withstand an intentional bad faith reading?
I guess I'm skeptical of if it really comes from a place of confusion in language.
Tma/tme were developed to counteract bad faith readings of trans women talking about transmisogyny and the effects it had. They also came from people pointing out the difference between casab/asab differences were too difficult to parse, too loaded with different ideological baggage, and also controversial, and most people don't seem to understand what the coercive part meant either. The casab language was developed to more easily talk about how trans women are not the gender they were given, because people found explaining it rather than abbreviating it too confusing.
I think affected and exempt are not perfectly accurate to the exact specification of how this power structure operates, and think that something that more perfectly expresses what is going on would be better, and hope something really does push that forward, rather than ceding ground.
but also, most of the objections sound so absurd if placed in the context of any other oppression "oh actually, I am homophobia affected, people think I'm gay sometimes, its the same thing!" "Oh actually, I am racism affected, the construct of whiteness has alienated me from my precolonial european heritage!" "Oh, actually, I am ableism affected, lack of accomdations meant I was robbed of being able to humanize disabled people!"
Like, all as real as "someone thought i was one of you and the forces marshaled to destroy your life also kinda restricted mine",
the lines of intensity of affect should not be so very hard to delineate. I don't think many people would tolerate this for other dynamics
@0utside0utsider @winter tbh we just think using super academic sounding acronyms for everything is cringe as hell
@0utside0utsider @winter proposed replacement: un-male
@winter @0utside0utsider @dangerdyke i don’t want to define myself by what i am not
@destroy @0utside0utsider @winter and i don’t say “un-male” as in simply not-male; i mean it as a total negation of patriarchal manhood.
@0utside0utsider @destroy @winter yeah our thoughts on it are still developing, still kinda feeling that out ourselves
@destroy @winter @0utside0utsider its less a matter of defining the self on a personal level and more a matter of describing relationship to patriarchy. like im not proposing this term as some sort of ultimate politically correct synonym for amab trans person for use in all contexts; the term it would replace certainly was not that. it is entirely to have a way to reference a patriarchal power dynamic. it is not a term i intend anyone to define themself with