Why do people always include the “cis” qualifier when they’re talking shit on dudes?
Unless you’re hating on cis men for being transphobic douchebags, how is this relevant? It just seems like folks (to be real, mostly cis women and FAAB folks) just wanna conjure up this idea of “cis” when it’s not even relevant. Given that it’s often used to call out people for misogynistic bullshit, the intention seems to be to say that it’s only cis men who are misogynists. Trans male misogyny is obscured or erased by this.
It’s telling that these politics are pushed by predominantly cis women. This selective misandry (and I would argue, misandrist politics in general), put a burden on MAAB folks of all genders and reproduce essentialist nonsense under a different guise. It is still MAAB people who must prove themselves to be appropriately “not-men,” while these politics give trans men a free ride. “Women and trans” or “no cis-men” spaces implicitly require MAAB people to prove their authenticity as “not-men” while all FAAB people are unquestionably included in those spaces. This is why “woman and trans” usually means “a bunch of cis women, a few FAAB trans/genderqueer folks, and maybe a trans women or two sometimes.” I don’t believe that this is the intention of many of the proponents of these spaces (I’ve personally been treated well in them), but instead something that operates invisibly.
But I’ve got the kind of genitals misandrists love to talk about cutting off and I’m not really down with the party or the Proper Historical Materialist Analysis so I can’t really be trusted.
important for me to read