the way that the mainstream has *discovered* “trans” is so dehumanizing and almost always boringly predictable. trans critique has become sanitized, individuated, and relegated to the mythological construction of “the trans.” by which i mean: we wait until “the trans,” enters the room to think trans (as if trans was not already always in the room). by which i mean we regard “the trans” as a woeful minority, as if in a world without transmisogyny there would not be many, many more of us. by which i mean we enfold “the trans” in cis ideology so tight so that when they/she/he speaks no words can be deciphered — and we take the groans as affirmation, not just consent but campaign, not just campaign but cash...for whom??? by which i mean: we want to protect “the trans” from the scary people “out there” as if “in here” isn’t also the problem. we tell “the trans” that we love them (insomuch as we can use them). we tell “the trans” that we need them (insomuch as we can incorporate them). we tell “the trans” that we are allied with them (but would/could never be them). how much of trans acceptance is for the consolidation of cis identity? how much of trans visibility is for cis profitability? how much of trans solidarity is for cis supremacy? what would it mean to understand that the problem is not just anti-trans violence, it is also cis supremacy? what would it mean to say that the state or emergency is the proliferation of cis identity politics? that the consolidation of cis identity and the gender binary (the future is female, etc.) is a direct response to the assertion of trans and gender non-confirming life? what would it mean to name and to address how transmisogyny is the means through which (cis) “man” AND “woman” are asserted and mobilized? what would it mean to shift the terrain of trans politics from “over there” to “in here,” to your own articulations of self and community, not just ours.
support the author