<-- home

note to self, it is still transmisogyny when you do it

I wrote a long post earlier today about why i hate the media stories on trans ‘children’. voz rightly called me out for generalizing when the problem, as always, is how the media portrays trans girls (and, yes, i’m well aware that the media also discusses trans boys, not the point). I even mention in the post that I basically only read stories about trans feminine people (of any age).

Thus, everything in that post is specifically about trans girls, it isn’t about trans kids. It is an act of transmisogyny on my part to act or write otherwise, especially since the most disgusting and sensationalist stories are those that focus on trans girls.

Because the media fascination with the bodies of trans feminine people has a long history and its roots go deep. Beyond a few anomolous stories (like the pregnant man or regarding famous men like Chaz Bono), most media stories focus on trans feminine people. This holds true with the stories of trans ‘kids’.

Most of these stories are all about the shock and amazement that little girls are girls. That they wear dresses, play with dolls and hair, and, you know, exist. More to the point: the more ‘scientific’ type stories about puberty blocking and whatever generally stay focused on the bodies of these girls and the decisions they are making (zomg! trans girls excersizing body autonomy! amazeballs, really.).

The bodies of trans feminine people are never our own. And we are never to old to be exposed to a callous and dehumanizing media.

The distinction between trans ‘kids’ and trans girls is important. Not making this distinction is transmisogyny.