It Will Become A 'Litmus Test' Culture War Question
The English language has had a rough few years. “Literally” has become its own antonym, “they” is clinging desperately to its linguistic clarity, 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 “woman” continue to mean “adult female human” in the same easy, uncontroversial way that “lioness” means “adult female lion”? Why can’t we admit that the “trans” in “trans woman” serves a function?
I’m not sure if my article inspired TaraElla to write, The Truth About Defining Woman (she published it a few days after mine), but given that she is a trans woman and might have a perspective I lack on the subject, I thought I’d take the opportunity to ask.
Steve QJ:
If we look at the 99% of the population who aren’t trans, there isn’t going to be a definition of ‘female’ that will satisfactorily include every woman and exclude every man.
I think you're right here, the problem is, this is true of absolutely everything, no? Can you give a definition of a chair that excludes tables and stools and even, as I saw recently, horses? Couldn't we make the same argument with cars and trees and dogs? The difference is, politicians are not afraid to give definitions of these words. And even if they're not 100% perfect, they work in 99% of cases because we’ve commonly agreed on what the words we use mean.
I agree with you that this has become a politicised question. A “gotcha” to try to trip up politicians. The question is, why? Why have so many people made trans acceptance and support conditional on their re-definition of the word "woman"? Why are we bickering about this word rather than the genuine issues and discrimination that affect trans people? I'm sincerely asking. I follow you and really appreciate your perspective on these issues. This one really baffles me.
TaraElla:
The problem is that this is no longer an ordinary question of definition. I think British opposition leader Keir Starmer gave a definition of woman that deliberately included trans women, and he got plenty of backlash from anti-trans forces. I fear that it will become a 'litmus test' culture war question, and we really don't need more of those.
As to why those supposedly pro-trans people would rather focus on definitions than actual progress in trans rights, I think a major reason is the influence of postmodern philosophy, including queer theory. Which is what I am trying to challenge with my work.
Steve QJ:
The problem is that this is no longer an ordinary question of definition.
Yes, again, I agree. It absolutely has become a "culture war litmus test". But that's because there's been this push to redefine "woman" in a way that takes it from 99+% accuracy to almost meaningless. The definition that seems to be most popular in postmodernist circles is "anybody who identifies as a woman." But as I'm sure you see, the circularity of this definition renders it useless.
I think you do a great job of challenging postmodernist philosophy which is why I find this confusing. I guess what I'm trying to understand is why the definition of woman needs to include trans women. What's the problem with the term trans woman? Which is uncontroversial, well understood, and leaves us all room to discuss more pressing issues for trans people.
TaraElla:
My main point is, it is wrong to have a political litmus test, where people might have to answer in a way that does not honor their sincerely held views, because this is essentially incompatible with free speech. I feel strongly about this because I am a free speech absolutist. The existence of the postmodern threat to common understandings does not change this.
Steve QJ:
it is wrong to have a political litmus test, where people might have to answer in a way that does not honor their sincerely held views
Again, I agree. And I'm also a free-speech absolutist. Maybe where we're not quite communicating here is that I think the current climate makes it controversial (and socially and economically dangerous), to define "woman" in a way that it's been defined for thousands of years.
I think it's people like Ketanji Brown-Jackson and Keir Starmer and Anneliese Dodds, on and on, who are afraid to answer in a way that honours their sincerely held views, because answering in a way that, even ten years ago, would have been totally uncontroversial, is now immediately mischaracterised as bigotry.
Which brings me back to the original question; why make trans acceptance and solidarity conditional on the willingness to redefine the word "woman"? I don't think Keir Starmer or anybody else would stumble over the definition of "trans woman". I don't think, in a less politicised climate, they'd stumble over the definition of "woman."
As I said, it's not possible for a single definition to work perfectly in 100% of cases. But I don't think it's necessary either. Especially when it works in 99.98% of cases. It just seems like a really self-sabotaging battle to be fighting.
TaraElla:
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.
Also, as a free speech absolutist, I believe we should be removing taboos, not adding them. Making more and more things controversial to say, forcing everyone to monitor their own speech all the time, is regressive.
Steve QJ:
Many people are willing to accept and accomodate trans people, and we should be focusing on that instead, rather than alienating people.
I agree. And I think you’re doing a great job in arguing for this way of thinking. Thank you for doing it. I know it isn’t always easy. I’m rooting for you!
TaraElla:
Thank you very much!
It’s often said that trans rights are debated as if they were an intellectual exercise, instead of issues that materially affect trans people’s lives. And this is true. But what always seems to be missed, is that these issues affect women’s lives too.
If we no longer know what a woman is, what are women’s rights? What are women’s spaces? What are women’s sports?
The reason we’re debating the semantics of whether trans women are women, instead of how to tackle the discrimination and abuse trans people face, is that the loudest, most unreasonable voices make willful ignorance a litmus test for trans acceptance.
But the only meaningful litmus test in any situation is whether you’re willing to tell the truth.
Trans people are real and deserve to live in safety and with dignity. There are (only a very few) occasions where the needs of women and trans women intersect and we need to talk about them honestly. Trans women are not women in the sense that we’ve used the word “woman” for the entirety of human history.
All of these things are true.
And neither trans women nor women benefit from pretending they’re not.
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?