… using “trans-face” as a term makes me feel uncomfortable — like we’re coopting another group’s oppression in order to express the magnitude of this different, non racially-motivated opression.

‘Transface’ as a term has been in use for a number of years, to describe this very specific problem. The parallel with blackface is referential, not appropriative, because it is the identical process: the privileged group appropriates a stereotype of the appearance of the oppressed group, usually for the purpose of mockery, always for the purpose of controlling representation. (In other words, there is no difference.)

You will see the same phenomenon with disability, where it is called ‘cripping-up’, after ‘blacking-up’. The reason for both referencing blackface is that it was blackface that was the first to be recognised as unacceptable — decades ago, vs only very recently for transface and cripping-up (and most people still don’t get it).

There is nothing appropriative about saying: ‘See what you did there? You’re doing exactly the same thing here.’

Here is an article about cripping-up, which specifically draws parallels to blackface and drag, and here’s another one. Here is an article from a couple years ago about transface, and here’s a recent one which specifically addresses issues of transface in Transparent.