Idk though, do "cis" colonized women "benefit" from western colonial gender structures? I think "benefit" depending how it's used can imply privilege discourse, or can imply one of intersectionality's intended premises: how one can "exempt" (relieve) themselves via opportunism https://twitter.com/hologramvin/status/1260544832893792256

Are "cis" colonized women collectively "responsible" & their work "overvalued?" It seems likely that opportunism to "exempt" oneself for the "cis" colonized woman exists as far as it "affects" trans women, specifically colonized trans women since whiteness is the Great Exemption

I use "cis" in quotes in this context specifically not to obfuscate bioessentialism as terfs do but bc I think it's important to recognize that relationships to colonial gender vary greatly even within "cis," racialization being the primary variation https://twitter.com/daniellesb_/status/1260219252776157189

I expanded on this thought more in this thread. Perhaps "privilege" as in the "affected" and "exempt" statuses I criticize here is better understood as "paths to exemption," the most marginalized tending to have more correct lines due to fewer such paths https://twitter.com/daniellesb_/status/1260219251513651202

Also I want to be clear I quote tweet with the intent of making a good faith criticism. It's a good opportunity to expand my thoughts as it comes just a day later. I don't see any malice in that thread. I do question the framing, however. I think it obscures relations a bit.

One thing I will say that is likely in agreement w/ that thread but differs in framing, is I don't think that cis people's writing is valued bc they're cis, but bc of the tendency of ppl to accept opportunism when it's available to them, literally what it means to be reactionary.

Wrt cis ppl, transmisogyny & transphobia are paths to "exemption." Any overvaluing of their work won't be bc they're cis but bc the content of their work is opportunist, the relative lack of opportunism available to trans women creating the tendency for us to be more correct

Important to note as I did in the thread I wrote yesterday linked to above that even this is reductive, because opportunism isn't equally available between trans women, race being the primary opportunism, explaining why livposting & contra & blaire white etc. are so popular

In this framing, "benefit" is a point of agreement between Vin and I. To "exempt" oneself is in the small picture a "benefit" even as it reinforces one's own oppression in the bigger picture. Vin is correct that cis ppl benefit from participating in transmisogyny & transphobia.

To benefit "as a given" is where I address my criticism, because it becomes a form of privilege discourse which can't help but produce the very "I'm not individually responsible" self-pitying reaction that Vin makes a conscious effort to combat in their thread.

In other words, I think it is far more effective to frame the point in a way that makes people aware of the opportunism, i.e. the paths to exemption, available to them. These paths exist whether they're acknowledged or not, and within "privilege" discourse they never will be.

Ironically, if ever there was a time to start preaching about "agency," it's in response to the privilege discourse that out of self-pity acts as though people have none. You CAN reject opportunism. It's the bare minimum required of a revolutionary.

Another thing about this framing is I believe it to be truer to the intended premise of intersectionality, that one may be oppressed, but you aren't oppressed for being _. Identity isn't discarded, but can be used to understand which paths to exemption are/aren't available to you

As oppressed people, relief, alleviation of suffering, is often tempting. There are few things more dangerous than the bourgeoisie "welcome" mat. The opportunist is born the moment revolution is given up on, when one can't see any other way out of their suffering but to alleviate

it by participating in the oppression of others. It's the same liberal logic behind the sympathetic "soldiertariat" myth and why all revolutionaries reject it as opportunism even if that myth were true (it isn't, most come from labor aristocrat/bourgeoisie backgrounds)

This framing should help clarify why specifying "trans women" instead of "trans people," when applicable which is the overwhelming majority of the time, is important and why we reject being grouped in w/ trans men, transmisogyny being a form of opportunism available to trans men.

The distinction I make between speaking "for me" and "speaking on my behalf" is that you're rejecting opportunism only in the latter, and I truly don't care if you pass me the mic if you're able to link our struggles and put my experiences and stakes into words the way I would've

Truly the reason I ask anyone to shut up isn't bc of their identity but bc I don't trust their commitment to rejecting opportunism, their identity reflecting the availability of it to them. When I tell non trans women to stfu the more literal interpretation is "I don't trust you"

Contrary to what reactionaries & chauvinists seem to believe, oppressed ppl are capable of seeing past identity, treating it w/ its appropriate significance w/o fetishizing it the way "leftists" and fascists alike fetishize it. Complaining about "identity politics" is projection.

If you read my hostile tweets toward ppl who aren't trans women as "I hate you bc you're not a trans woman" rather than "I don't trust non trans women bc of the transmisogynistic opportunism available" then you're interpreting it via "privilege" & throwing yourself a pity party.

If we're to adapt Combat Liberalism to the 21st century we must include opposition to privilege discourse (which fetishizes identity) & all of its forms, which imo as expressed in yesterday's thread, includes "transmisogyny affected" & "transmisogyny exempt" terminology

We don't "benefit" because we are "privileged." We "benefit" whenever we act opportunistically. Our identities reflect the opportunism, the paths to exemption, that are available to us. We access this "benefit" by accepting the opportunity to. "Privilege" obfuscates all of this,

making it seem as though the exemptions we enjoy in this hell are immutable, beyond our ability to reject, denying that it is through our own opportunistic actions that we achieve any alleviation to our suffering and intensify the hell for someone else.

From a marxist perspective, "privilege" is anti-dialectical, as though the exemptions enjoyed in the present were achieved through actions confined to the past w/ no continuation into the present. For example, "why am I responsible for the actions of my ancestors centuries ago?"

To wrap this thread up, not only do I hope that my criticism is clear, I also hope that my intentions of camaraderie are evident in the way that I framed the criticism. Much of what I expanded on isn't even specific to the quoted thread, but it served as a good starting-off point