People often want to ignore the last ten+ years of development on transmisogyny theory and only refer to Serano, but if you actually read Serano she doesn’t define it as “transphobia + misogyny” but as transphobia that’s performing an anti-woman function

Which in practice means anti-trans woman specifically.

The point of “TMA” is that, looking at it this way, there are people of many identities other than “trans woman” who are oppressed in mechanically the same anti-transfem way that trans women are

This includes many culturally specific identities

And what is revealed in this analysis once we put it into practice is that “anti-transfem transphobia” necessitates the framework of anti-effeminacy and its role of sustaining male supremacy

If we are to stick to defining transmisogyny as a synthesis of other oppressions (which often aren’t any better defined, and that’s not nearly as criticized), it’s the synthesis of many different forms of gender regulatory violence at once

This includes not only misogyny and cissexism but anti-effeminacy, anti-viragism, negative masculinization, and compulsory manhood

Yes we need to understand all of those, and they *synthesize together*

This makes transmisogyny greater than the sum of its parts, which is why breaking pieces off it and saying “this piece is identical to transmisogyny as a whole” is pointless and counterproductive

“But cis women get called men sometimes too, isn’t that transmisogyny?”

No that’s reducing a synthesis to only one of its underlying elements and that’s not how a synthesis works

So if we need a short sweet definition of transmisogyny, I propose that it’s the synthesis of anti-woman, anti-trans, anti-effeminate, anti-viragist violence and compulsory manhood