sparrows on Nostr: there’s something to be said about how like, not only is “female socialization” ...
there’s something to be said about how like, not only is “female socialization” theory as the flipside to male socialization essentialist and transphobic, it creates a dynamic in which supposedly female socialzed trans people (“transmascs” from here for brevity) have access to a sort of limited projection of male privlege. where they are protected from certain kinds of critique and allowed to act with a relative degree of impunity to the harm caused by their actions, justified by this female socialization that supposedly makes them particularly vulnerable.
it is true that transmascs are vulnerable under patriarchy; they are of course threatened by both transphobic discrimination and traditional forms of misogynist control over their bodies. but patriarchy is not simply those assigned male over those assigned female, but a multifaceted social hierarchy that positions maleness as more valuable and powerful then femaleness.
male and female socialization theories are often critiqued for their gender essentialism; that they misgender the transfem and transmasc subjects they describe. but there is another dimension to socialization theory, which is the idea that male socialization confers responsibility, or a debt towards those subject to a vulnerability conferred by female socialization. this is, of course, bullshit.
transfems giving up their more socially valued birth assignment subjects them to greater scrutiny and vulnerability, not less. but this aspect of socialization theory gives justification for transmascs (and in some cases, cis women) to claim victimization when they are in conflict with people lower on the gendered hierarchy then them. frequently we’ve observed it deployed against transfems, whose supposed debt incurred by our own birth assignment can be invoked in support.
whats remarkable is how this pattern playing out mirrors the protections of cis maleness. this supposed vulnerability insulates those who deploy it from critique, similar to how a powerful man would be for his supposed great masculine labors as breadwinner. it forces those it is deployed against to manage the feelings of the one attacking them, just like cis women are expected to manage the feelings of the cis men who oppress them. by rhetorically inverting the direction of gendered violence, it is possible to gain a facsimile of male privilege, conditionally, and only over those rendered even more abject under patriarchy then themselves
it is true that transmascs are vulnerable under patriarchy; they are of course threatened by both transphobic discrimination and traditional forms of misogynist control over their bodies. but patriarchy is not simply those assigned male over those assigned female, but a multifaceted social hierarchy that positions maleness as more valuable and powerful then femaleness.
male and female socialization theories are often critiqued for their gender essentialism; that they misgender the transfem and transmasc subjects they describe. but there is another dimension to socialization theory, which is the idea that male socialization confers responsibility, or a debt towards those subject to a vulnerability conferred by female socialization. this is, of course, bullshit.
transfems giving up their more socially valued birth assignment subjects them to greater scrutiny and vulnerability, not less. but this aspect of socialization theory gives justification for transmascs (and in some cases, cis women) to claim victimization when they are in conflict with people lower on the gendered hierarchy then them. frequently we’ve observed it deployed against transfems, whose supposed debt incurred by our own birth assignment can be invoked in support.
whats remarkable is how this pattern playing out mirrors the protections of cis maleness. this supposed vulnerability insulates those who deploy it from critique, similar to how a powerful man would be for his supposed great masculine labors as breadwinner. it forces those it is deployed against to manage the feelings of the one attacking them, just like cis women are expected to manage the feelings of the cis men who oppress them. by rhetorically inverting the direction of gendered violence, it is possible to gain a facsimile of male privilege, conditionally, and only over those rendered even more abject under patriarchy then themselves