The English language has had a rough few years. “Literally” has become its own antonym, “they” is clinging desperately to its linguistic usefulness, and “woman”, well, nobody seems to know how to define that anymore. In my article, What Happens If Trans Women Aren’t Women, I asked why the existence of trans women means we need to redefine “woman” at all. Why is it controversial to admit that trans women are, in fact, trans women? Why can’t we acknowledge that “woman” means “adult female human” in the same easy, uncontroversial way we admit that “lioness” means “adult female lion”? Why can’t we admit that the “trans” trans woman serves a function?
This is just the latest, and a particularly vicious, instance of a broader problem that has come to pervade our politics: substituting a semantic argument as a surrogate for a substantive one. Quibbling over the words we use allows people on all sides of an issue to declare their tribal loyalties without addressing actual policies on their substantive merits. Is government-provided health insurance “socialism”? Does giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship constitute “amnesty”? Is TaraElla a “woman”? As George R. R. Martin would say, words are wind.
The division of human beings (and, indeed, virtually all living things) into two biological sexes is an irreducible fact of life on planet Earth. So is the existence of a small minority of people who, for one reason or another, don’t fit neatly into that classification. What we need to be addressing is how to assure such people the safety, respect, and dignity they deserve as human beings. Instead, we’re reduced to pointless wrangling over how to label them. They, and all of us, deserve better.
I find it appalling that these groups are at such odds. I’ve read recently some pretty horrible ways in which feminists are derided for supporting women’s rights to be women.
As a female, a mother, and a K-8 teacher for 12 amazing years, I reject completely the idea that a man can be in female spaces. There’s just too much historical baggage associated with man-on-women violence for this to be ok.
Much as your work with racism seeks to understand the trauma of older black Americans who cannot let go of their bitterness and disillusionment with the American creed despite its progress…so too is it frankly ridiculous to expect - no, demand - that women cede precious private space - in the bathroom, on the playing field - to trans women. I’m not talking about professional work - I’m talking about uniquely female spaces.
Have a little compassion, people. Strive for a little grace.
Do the women and girls being abused in Ukraine right now have any doubt about whether they are women (and prey) or not?
I loved reading this conversation! This part from TaraElla really summed it up for me:
"I definitely agree that tying trans acceptance to willingness to embrace a certain definition of woman is unwise. I'm quite frustrated about that approach personally. Many people are willing to accept and accomodate trans people, and we should be focusing on that instead, rather than alienating people."
100%, 100%. Will need to look into her posts.
I have to think more about your idea that there are only a few areas where women and trans women's needs intersect. I feel like there are many, but then that is a feeling not a list, and it says something that I'm not able to instantly provide that list LOL. What does stand out to me is the threat of violence from men that both demographics face regularly. So maybe it is not many intersecting areas, but a small number of really big areas?
There really should be no controversy here, A "trans woman" is a man who has been cosmetically altered to appear more like a woman. He is not a woman.
That Lia Thomas who came out in first place doesn't look remotely feminine; he looks like a long-haired man. He grew up with male bones and musculature; he is cerebrally wired for a competitiveness that women don't share.
And here I thought the right and their pizzagate were deluded.
I started following TaraElla under my original now closed Medium account and follow her under my new one. Her new political series is quite good.
In keeping with the views expressed by you both in that conversation, acceptance of trans-persons without the trans prefix is a hard sell and I doubt that I will live to see it. But then, I don't think it necessary for a norm of treating trans-people decently.
I've written before that 30 years ago, before trans was in the lexicon except for transvestite (another unfortunate share for different things) I was perfectly willing to treat a "man in a woman's body" as he wished. I purposefully just used "he" because I didn't think he was a woman and saw him as a flaming gay, effeminate man. And that was OK. He knew that but was good with my considerate treatment of him. Perhaps today. now that trans is a word in my awareness and thing I would call him her, but we are no longer in touch with each other. I genuinely liked him and we had conversations without awkwardness.
Trans persons who can successfully pass will have an easier time than those who don't with acceptance, but may face more danger from outraged men who are surprised after sex has been initiated. Our perfect world has not yet arrived.
So many excellent posts and such a breath of fresh air that discussion brings, like nuance and complexity. I have long felt trans women being referred to as trans women IS an important distinction. As you say, the real issue is how Trans can become fully realized, unfettered humans to live their lives as they wish. Never thought it would a word choice that would become controversial. But in this tribal, yes/no, polarized, Twitter mob environment we are trapped in, this went from being just semantics to something quite dangerous. It is telling that no one is asking “what’s a man”? Because women (adult females) have experiences of being threatened by men forever. I remember once reading a survey on what worries men about women and the response was “that they will laugh at us”. What worries women about men? “That they will kill us.” This isn’t hyperbole, nor is to impugn the character of trans women. But it helps explain why there is zero discussion on “what is a man?”
Do you support lying? Do you stand behind commercial and political falsehood? Stochastic assassination? Bottling sewage and marketing it as a cancer cure?
Seriously?
Let's get serious here: free speech is intended to protect criticism of government, to allow citizens to disagree with their leaders without a charge of sedition. That's ALL it is. And like well-regulated militias it has been expanded to embrace the most vile extremities imaginable.
I was pretty shocked to read that, Steve. I associate free speech absolutism with nincompoops like Glenn Greenwald, not with people of established intelligence and command of nuance such as yourself.
This is just the latest, and a particularly vicious, instance of a broader problem that has come to pervade our politics: substituting a semantic argument as a surrogate for a substantive one. Quibbling over the words we use allows people on all sides of an issue to declare their tribal loyalties without addressing actual policies on their substantive merits. Is government-provided health insurance “socialism”? Does giving undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship constitute “amnesty”? Is TaraElla a “woman”? As George R. R. Martin would say, words are wind.
The division of human beings (and, indeed, virtually all living things) into two biological sexes is an irreducible fact of life on planet Earth. So is the existence of a small minority of people who, for one reason or another, don’t fit neatly into that classification. What we need to be addressing is how to assure such people the safety, respect, and dignity they deserve as human beings. Instead, we’re reduced to pointless wrangling over how to label them. They, and all of us, deserve better.
I find it appalling that these groups are at such odds. I’ve read recently some pretty horrible ways in which feminists are derided for supporting women’s rights to be women.
As a female, a mother, and a K-8 teacher for 12 amazing years, I reject completely the idea that a man can be in female spaces. There’s just too much historical baggage associated with man-on-women violence for this to be ok.
Much as your work with racism seeks to understand the trauma of older black Americans who cannot let go of their bitterness and disillusionment with the American creed despite its progress…so too is it frankly ridiculous to expect - no, demand - that women cede precious private space - in the bathroom, on the playing field - to trans women. I’m not talking about professional work - I’m talking about uniquely female spaces.
Have a little compassion, people. Strive for a little grace.
Do the women and girls being abused in Ukraine right now have any doubt about whether they are women (and prey) or not?
I loved reading this conversation! This part from TaraElla really summed it up for me:
"I definitely agree that tying trans acceptance to willingness to embrace a certain definition of woman is unwise. I'm quite frustrated about that approach personally. Many people are willing to accept and accomodate trans people, and we should be focusing on that instead, rather than alienating people."
100%, 100%. Will need to look into her posts.
I have to think more about your idea that there are only a few areas where women and trans women's needs intersect. I feel like there are many, but then that is a feeling not a list, and it says something that I'm not able to instantly provide that list LOL. What does stand out to me is the threat of violence from men that both demographics face regularly. So maybe it is not many intersecting areas, but a small number of really big areas?
There really should be no controversy here, A "trans woman" is a man who has been cosmetically altered to appear more like a woman. He is not a woman.
That Lia Thomas who came out in first place doesn't look remotely feminine; he looks like a long-haired man. He grew up with male bones and musculature; he is cerebrally wired for a competitiveness that women don't share.
And here I thought the right and their pizzagate were deluded.
I started following TaraElla under my original now closed Medium account and follow her under my new one. Her new political series is quite good.
In keeping with the views expressed by you both in that conversation, acceptance of trans-persons without the trans prefix is a hard sell and I doubt that I will live to see it. But then, I don't think it necessary for a norm of treating trans-people decently.
I've written before that 30 years ago, before trans was in the lexicon except for transvestite (another unfortunate share for different things) I was perfectly willing to treat a "man in a woman's body" as he wished. I purposefully just used "he" because I didn't think he was a woman and saw him as a flaming gay, effeminate man. And that was OK. He knew that but was good with my considerate treatment of him. Perhaps today. now that trans is a word in my awareness and thing I would call him her, but we are no longer in touch with each other. I genuinely liked him and we had conversations without awkwardness.
Trans persons who can successfully pass will have an easier time than those who don't with acceptance, but may face more danger from outraged men who are surprised after sex has been initiated. Our perfect world has not yet arrived.
So many excellent posts and such a breath of fresh air that discussion brings, like nuance and complexity. I have long felt trans women being referred to as trans women IS an important distinction. As you say, the real issue is how Trans can become fully realized, unfettered humans to live their lives as they wish. Never thought it would a word choice that would become controversial. But in this tribal, yes/no, polarized, Twitter mob environment we are trapped in, this went from being just semantics to something quite dangerous. It is telling that no one is asking “what’s a man”? Because women (adult females) have experiences of being threatened by men forever. I remember once reading a survey on what worries men about women and the response was “that they will laugh at us”. What worries women about men? “That they will kill us.” This isn’t hyperbole, nor is to impugn the character of trans women. But it helps explain why there is zero discussion on “what is a man?”
(Slamming on brakes and nearly overturning)
WAIT a minute. Free speech absolutist? Seriously?
Do you support lying? Do you stand behind commercial and political falsehood? Stochastic assassination? Bottling sewage and marketing it as a cancer cure?
Seriously?
Let's get serious here: free speech is intended to protect criticism of government, to allow citizens to disagree with their leaders without a charge of sedition. That's ALL it is. And like well-regulated militias it has been expanded to embrace the most vile extremities imaginable.
I was pretty shocked to read that, Steve. I associate free speech absolutism with nincompoops like Glenn Greenwald, not with people of established intelligence and command of nuance such as yourself.