I also feel that it’s relatively common to downplay the pervasive violence and exploitation against transhet women that is outright homophobic in character and function, using the same processes that anti-queer violence otherwise.
I also feel that it’s relatively common to downplay the pervasive violence and exploitation against transhet women that is outright homophobic in character and function, using the same processes that anti-queer violence otherwise.
And this is WHILE we’re complying with heterosexual norms. Trans women who do our best to succeed within male-female dynamics are still immensely and often disproportionately vulnerable to transphobic violence and this isn’t a minor detail. It’s a unique relation to the sexual economy.
This is how compulsory cisness shows up for us via its flipside, as the alienation embedded in transness as a social condition, in a way that’s not about conformity or nonconformity but the value placed on our sexual utility.
IMO this is probably why so many cultures can have a romanticism about transhet women and girls that resembles the “women are great” vibes that can show up even in intensely misogynistic regimes. Exploitation can come loaded with a perverse attachment.
We shouldn’t think that cis society “gives us transness” out of the goodness of the heart or that the romanticism is similar to a parent having a favorite child.
We should understand instead that cis society is particularly ready to exploit trans girls and women who are the most easily motivated to cooperate with male-female relations. And that whatever advantages of acceptance come from this also come with special vulnerabilities.
There’s a point at which compulsion into a normative identity stops being the goal, and instead the goal becomes making you as vulnerable to exploitation as possible. Analysis of norms and discipline needs to pay special attention to this line.