I have many thoughts which pertain to this subject. I apologize if my thoughts seem disorganized.
The concept of a group of individuals "reclaiming" a word which has been used to demean, insult, or otherwise menace members of that group is one with which I have grappled for some time. In ways, I can understand such an inclination. And at times, I have jokingly yet proudly proclaimed myself to be "Queer as a 3-dollar bill." In truth, it is not the word(s) which we are reclaiming - it is the dignity which those who use them in hateful ways are trying to take from us. And it is with respect to that dignity, that I assert that any word which has been used harmfully against a group - which "->-bleeped-<-" has, indeed, been used harmfully against transmen, even if it is less known or unheard of by most - is a proper tool for such individuals in reclaiming that dignity. That is, if this is a way in which they chose to do so. At the same time, I personally tend not to chose this method of reclaiming that dignity, as there are other ways which I find more useful.
This is the first time I have ever heard of this particular argument - that the term "->-bleeped-<-" inherently implies a misogynistic attitude and as such does not apply to people who do not experience misogyny. (If I am mistaken with regard to what the actual argument is, please correct me.) I was honestly surprised to find this particular line in the sand. But upon further thought I suppose it shouldn't have surprised me. Many people cite a word's historical usage when attempting to affix a definition. And since transwomen have been (and continue to be) more visible in society (I have many theories as to factors which attribute to this fact), its known historical usage has indeed been towards transwomen. This I understand. However, if I may, I'd like to make an argument by analogy against the idea that transmen cannot reclaim the word "->-bleeped-<-" because of the misogynistic attitude it conveys.
There is an argument which asserts that same-sex (or, if you prefer, same-gender) marriage cannot be considered marriage because historically, marriage is a bond which unites a man and a woman. So, whatever bond two people of the same sex have, it can't be marriage. That word is already in use for something else.
Now, I have a feeling that many of us here disagree with this argument.
If these are the kinds of lines we wish to draw, - or erase, as the case may be - let us be consistent.
As for the word "->-bleeped-<-" itself, there is no part of the word which, linguistically, can be tied down specifically to a reference to women. At it's base is only the prefix "trans," which is obviously not gender-specific. Also, it seems to me that the underlying reason for the slur is to attack the very nature of being trans-gender - to imply that transcending society's binary, concrete concept of gender is shameful, wrong, and all the other things which go along with these kinds of hate-thought.
So, it seems to me that anyone who transcends this binary, concrete gender structure imposed by society is a potential victim of the slur "->-bleeped-<-." And as I said in the beginning, it seems only fair that any tool which can be used against you, should be fair game to take and use in your defense.
So, at any rate - if there are other reasons beyond the claim that this particular slur has (as far as widely-known historical usage is concerned) been used primarily against transwomen, that it should be deemed inappropriate for transmen to "reclaim" it, please let me know. Otherwise, that argument doesn't really hold water with me.
Also, strictly speaking, the very fact that transmen are ignored in society indicates to me that either A) it is somehow more socially acceptable and less noteworthy because it is reasonable for a woman to wish she were a man, since men are superior - a sexist and misogynistic view, or B) we're not really men anyway and as such don't really count and it doesn't matter what we do - another sexist and misogynistic attitude. So, I would argue that to some extent transmen can and do experience misogyny, based on the fact that by many we are viewed as flawed or insane women. In turn, transwomen can and do experience misanthropy, when they are viewed as flawed or insane men.
That is, of course, if we take "misogyny" and "misanthropy" to mean the hatred, distrust, or dislike of women/men respectively.
I'm just sayin'.
//EDIT//
Forgot to mention that I realize that many of these ideas and sentiments have already been expressed by others on this thread. But I also think that sometimes multiple people saying the same thing in different ways helps to point out other ideas that none of them maybe have noticed before. :3
