You Are Basically Saying You Dont Like It Because Its Icky
It’s never fun giving credit to people you dislike. And I really dislike Matt Walsh.
Yet in my article, Trans Activism’s Self-Inflicted Backlash, I was forced to admit that his then-new documentary, What Is A Woman?, had achieved something almost unimaginable in 2022. It made people from across the political spectrum agree on something.
Actually, that’s too generous to Walsh’s film.
What people from across the political spectrum agree on is that the word “woman” means something. It’s not a feeling, it’s not an “identity,” it’s not a preference for dresses and “girl things,” it’s a class of people who have certain needs and rights related to their biological sex.
Modern trans activism’s attempts to deny this simple fact have done immeasurable harm to public perceptions of trans people. Leaving the door open for people like Walsh to push for a blanket ban on trans care while people like Alex ignore the problem entirely.
Alex:
There will always be people of any movement who are less polished. It's like the red haired feminist of the 2010s. Some people are just having a bad day, and don't present themselves well, and people on the right then take that reaction and demonize it.
It seems strange to me to suggest that a reactionary backlash is deserved because a few trans people were mean on the Internet, especially when bad faith actors like Walsh amplified these reactions.
As for why the question of "what is a woman" wasn't answered? Well its a complex question. Gender is a social construction constantly shifting. The identity of womanhood has radically changed across time and place.
Yet Matt was not asking this question in good faith, and often misrepresented why he was there. I would not point to these awkward answers and read into them a "conspiracy of being offended by trans activists." It was an awkward and duplictous interview. That is all.
I am sorry trans people on the Internet have been mean to you. That sucks. But trans people do not deserve this reactionary backlash anymore than gay people deserved to be ignored during the AIDS crisis, or lynchings were deserved during the summer of 1919. It's not the job of the oppressed to be reasonable to their oppressors. That logic only leads in one direction, and it's six feet under.
“Gender is a social construction constantly shifting. The identity of womanhood has radically changed across time and place.”
As pretty much every trans person and “ally” I’ve ever spoken to feels the need to point out, trans people have existed for millennia, across many cultures. Even in the West, trans identities have been recognised for decades. Yet they never seem to ask themselves why it’s only in the past few years that there’s been so much pushback.
Could it have anything to do with the attempt, not replicated in any other culture, to erase the meaning of woman completely? Not just the “identity” but the material reality? Could it have anything to do with the experimental surgery being performed on children?
No, of course not. It must be “hate.”
Steve QJ:
It seems strange to me to suggest that a reactionary backlash is deserved because a few trans people were mean on the Internet, especially when bad faith actors like Walsh amplified these reactions.
No, let me be very clear, I'm not saying it's deserved. I'm saying it was inevitable. There's a very important difference.
The issue with the question "what is a woman?" (which I agree is often used is a gotcha against trans people), is the idea that everybody agrees this is a question about gender and gender is complicated. Asking the question highlights the word games being played.
Gender is complicated. But the question of what a woman is was very simple until what? 5 years ago? Is the question of what a hen is complicated? Or a lioness? Or a doe? The question has been deliberately obfuscated in people's minds because of a desire to expand the category of "woman" to include people who would never previously have been considered women.
As I've pointed out before, this hasn't happened in any culture, even those who were thousands of years ahead of us in recognising gender diversity. Two-spirit people aren't considered women. Nor are the kathoey. Nor are the Muxe.
As I've said many times, I know that trans people in general are not represented by the nastiest people online. As no group of people are. But for the vast majority of people who don't know any trans people in real life, this inevitably becomes a representation of what trans people are like. And the logically incoherent arguments being used to defend their positions will fall apart under public scrutiny precisely beacase they don't get much better than the arguments offered in the film.
Trans people on the internet have been mean to me. 😅 I'm genuinely touched by your apology on their behalf. But hand on heart, this hasn't made me feel any ill will to trans people in general. This article is a warning about a growing problem that I see very clearly. Not a "Ha! you deserve it."
Alex:
Was it inevitable? Perhaps, however reactionary backlashs seems to happen from the majority in ancticipation of a marginalized group recieving political gains. It's likely that all trans people could have engaged in a masterclass in respectability politics (a very unreasonable demand), and for this backlash to have still happened.
As to your claim that gender was simple even five years ago. No not really. It's as simple as any identity is, which is to say that its controversal and up for debate. Take any identity: gamer, leftist, chrisitan, and there meaning will not be agreed upon universally.
Gender has always been complicated. It's just that most people weren't thinking about this stuff until recently because trans representation has increased in media.
The truth is that cisgender people have not had to consider how their gender, and really most identities are a social construct. What we are seeing now is culture shock, and if our society gets through this (which is by no means a foregone conclusions), our thoughts on gender will expand and evolve, as they have done throughout history.
Steve QJ:
As to your claim that gender was simple even five years ago.
Please read a little more carefully. You've based an entire argument here off something I didn't say.
I actually said that gender is complicated. To be precise, so complicated the the term is almost meaningless. Far from being 2 genders, there are ~8 billion. No two people express their gender and their identity in the same way. There's no single word that expresses my expression of my combination of masculinity and femininity or that expresss yours. In the end, we're basically talking about a personality as viewed through certain stereotypes.
What I said was simple, or at least could be simply stated without risking being banned from social media, is that a woman is an adult human female. Just as a lioness is a female lion or a vixen is a female fox. I still don't understand why this has become controversial.
Trans people exist, they deserve the same rights and dignity and safety as everybody else. As I've mentioned elsewhere, when I meet trans woman in real life, I don't continually refer to them as trans. But the idea that it's hateful to remain aware of the indisputable fact that they are trans when it's relevant is so bizarre to me. And nobody has ever explained it.
Alex:
Listen I know you think this is straightforward, but the definition of an adult human female is just as arbitray. It is also by no means the definition we have used across history (its a very recent concept), and it is way more complciated than you think.
What is an adult? This is an arbitray concept dictated by society. 18 in the US because we said so. And if you are going by biology, you body changes your entire life. It's equally arbitary to draw a line and say that a person is a woman because they are 14 or younger and having their period. So now to create this "sure fire" definition, you've decided to arbitrarily exclude all those who don't meet a certain age requirement or enter puberty very late, as "nonwoman."
Who is human? Dehumanization has been an integral part of colonialism. If the powers at be don't see someone as human, they are not going to see them as a woman either. Trans woman are a great example of this, but really you are opening the door for any marginalized group to be targeted with this definition.
Finally who is female? Saying a "woman is someone who is female" is just as circular as saying that a woman is "someone who identifies as a woman." There are so many ways to define sex (chromosomes, gentalia). And in the process you exclude intersex people who might currently identify and pass as woman just to assert this definition.
I understand that this definition sounds like it makes sense, but it doesn't in the sleightest. To impose this defiinition of "Adult human females," which just so happens to exclude trans women, you are now excluding even more ciswomen in the process. And for what? To impose an artifical a definition that we have historically not used across time and space.
Steve QJ:
Saying a "woman is someone who is female" is just as circular as saying that a woman is "someone who identifies as a woman."
No. It's not. A female is a member of any animal species, not just humans, whose body is set up to produce large gametes. In mammals, except in the case of the platypus, females will carry the developing young of their species inside their bodies and give birth to them.
This can be observed objectively. And the external genitalia indicate whether somebody is male of female with roughly 99.98% accuracy. The alternative is a definition that depends on how somebody tells you they feel in that moment. It's so stupid, I can't believe we're even talking about it as if it's a serious conundrum.
Yes, there are rare occasions where due to some illness or birth defect, a female's body isn't actually be able to accomplish the task her body was set up to do. But this doesn't stop her from being a female. Any more than a person with any other birth defect is no longer a human.
If we know what a lioness is, I don't understand why we're pretending we don't know what a woman is.
Alex:
So your counter for why people cant self identify with a gender is that its stupid.
Thats an appeal to emotion. You are basically saying you dont like it because its icky. People do tons of things I find gross or dont understand. Thats not an excuse to invalidate it.
You are sidestepping. We are not arguing about what a female is. We are arguing about womanhood and how using the definition of female for woman, along with the concepts of adult and human, are equally as circular.
We do not look at someone's genitalia and chromosomes to determine their gender in day to day life. That isn't a thing. If you are willing to make allowances for "birth defects" and call those people whose identity as woman woman, why is this so hard for trans woman? it really doesn't effect you that much.
Again gender and sex are different things. We don't know the genders of lions, if they have any at all, because we can't talk to them. It's a nonsequitar.
Also you completely ignored how the adult and human parts of your definition are also not great. i guess you didn't have a counter far those? or still processing (which is fine)?
Steve QJ:
You are basically saying you dont like it because its icky.
No, I'm not "basically" saying that. I don't find transgender people "icky" at all. I'm saying that calling any animal a female when it is not, in fact, female, is untrue. And this simple untruth can lead to many other problems.
I ignored "human" because it's ridiculous. You know what a human is. So do I. If I were so inclined I could go and track down a definition. But I won't, because there is zero ambiguity in anybody's mind. You want to pretend there is because your whole position depends on obfuscating our shared understanding of the meaning of words. I'm not playing that game.
"Adult" is, I guess, slightly more interesting. Yes, it's absolutely true that there is ambiguity in how we define adult. Age of consent laws are largely arbitrary, and were adopted mainly because the onset of sexual maturity is too early for most morally intact people to accept as adulthood. Some will say it's the end of puberty, some will say it's not until sexual development is complete, but sure, it's a line we've drawn in the sand to protect children. I have no problem dealing with its minor ambiguity for that reason.
But female is not ambiguous at all. As I've already explained. And yes, we (or rather you) were arguing about what a female is:
"Finally who is female? Saying a "woman is someone who is female" is just as circular as saying that a woman is "someone who identifies as a woman.""
No, it's not circular. And it turns out, what a female is actually matters. Including for trans people.
For example, there's the case of Cameron Whitley, a trans man who neglected to tell doctors that he is female. His kidneys were shutting down, but doctors appraised him according to male blood toxicity levels to determine whether he needed a kidney transplant.
Those levels are different for females.
Cameron almost died because doctors believed that he was a male, and treated him according to male criteria, when he was, in fact, a female.
Or there's the recently published case in the NEJM about a trans man who went to hospital with abdominal pain. His medical information said "male," so the nurse, noting high blood pressure, apparent obesity and the fact that the patient was off his blood pressure medication, assumed hypertension.
Nope, turns out he was pregnant. A possibility the nurse didn't properly account for because, you guessed it, males can't get pregnant.
I honestly don't care what anybody identifies as. Why should I? If a man wants to live his life as a woman, whatever that really means when you think about it, I support them. I will and have defended the right to do so. I think gender diversity and non-conformity is a good thing.
But yet again, gender and sex are different. And female (and male) refers to sex. Sex is a matter of objective fact. Not identity. And however you identify, there are certain (only a few) facets of life where sex has to be taken into account. The failure of some members of the trans community to accept this simple, not at all hateful fact, is going to have negative repercussions for the whole community.
Topically enough, Macy Gray just demonstrated this a few days ago, right? It's crazy to be arguing about backlash I predicted when it's literally happening. I feel like Nostradamus.
Alex:
Listen, trans people are well aware of our biology. It's why many get HRT in the first place.
Yet Womanhood is what we are talking about. Not sex. We are talking about gender. But you know if this is your internal definition of gender fine. The point people were getting upset about is that you blamed trans people for a conservative backlash in this article.
This is the actual point in contention, and I feel like we are going on this tangent about what is a woman, when what I really care about is trans rights. You are saying you will defend trans people, while simultaneously providing intellectual fodder that is actively harming the community. This article is harmful.
“This article is harmful.”
Ah, there it is. I could feel the tone of Alex’s replies getting spikier as the flaws in his arguments became more obvious. Finally, we arrive at the trump card; “harm.” Sweet, unfalsifiable, never quite specified “harm.”
Steve QJ:
Listen, trans people are well aware of our biology. It's why many get HRT in the first place.
This is certainly true. But some trans people are making great efforts to have their biology ignored by the legal system. And on the rare occasions where biology is relevant, this is a problem.
So for the millionth time, no, we are (or at least I am) talking about sex. I couldn't possibly be less interested in what a trans person, or any person, decides to do when it comes to expressing their femininity/masculinity. I'm all for it. The more gender diversity the better.
But femininity is utterly irrelevant when it comes to sport. Femininity is utterly irrelevant when it comes to male vs female patterns of violence. And the right to express your femininity is not the right to be treated identically to a woman. For anybody. So please, tell me what human rights trans people want that they don't have. Be specific. People always deflect when I ask this question.
I'm not blaming trans people as a group for a "conservative" backlash. I'm very specifically blaming the toxic, misogynistic elements of trans activism and the incoherent ideology they spout, for a backlash that is coming from people, especially women, who are absolutely not conservative.
You need to stop hiding behind the idea that everybody who has an issue with the extremes of trans activism is "hateful" or "conservative." Many reasonable, kind, liberal people are simply not able to go along with the gaslighting that's happening.
“So please, tell me what human rights trans people want that they don't have. Be specific. People always deflect when I ask this question.”
Hmm, I should have said, “People always deflect or run away when I ask this question.”
This was the last I heard from Alex. The perfect opportunity to explain the “harm” I’m doing. Or to lay out the terrible human rights violations that transgender people face, and nothing.
Trans rights are human rights. Because trans people are human. The problem is, the “rights” that trans activists are demanding aren’t rights at all. They’re privileges that no other human has.
For example, controlling how other people refer to you is not a human right. Is nobody else baffled that calling somebody an asshole or a moron or a doo-doo head is less controversial than calling some male human beings “he”?
Choosing which single-sex spaces you enter is not a human right. If a man walks into a female changing room and takes his clothes off, he will (quite rightly) be arrested. But if the same man says the magic words, “I identify as a woman,” he gains a legal right to be there?
And guiding and protecting your children is a human right. So how can a parent lose custody of her female child for believing that she is a girl?
That we live in a world where we can’t all agree on the answers to these questions is only slightly more disturbing than the fact that I even partially agree with Matt Walsh.
I couldn’t make it through their arguments. It’s clear Alex is genuine in their belief but also clear that they just don’t understand my experience as a woman. It’s easy to argue in theory that gender is a social construct when we are talking about which clothes to wear or which pronouns to use. But when we’re talking about my history as a woman, or my mother’s or grandmother’s, it’s another story.
That I started to bleed at 13 is not an experience I share with trans women. Or that I am physically smaller and more vulnerable.
Even socialization can’t be ignored—for example that I was raised to present myself more softly, and the problems that creates when I want to be heard at work, or that my grandmother was denied the opportunity to go to college by her parents because her older brother chose not to.
I believe in accepting and respecting identity. But that shouldn’t require me to pretend I don’t notice difference. As we do with everyone, we can notice the ways in which we are similar and the ways in which we are different. And we should be open to surprises around that. But we don’t need to participate in this kind of self-erasure just to help someone else feel better. How it makes me feel matters too.
In a nutshell: “…the right to express your femininity is not the right to be treated identically to a woman.” You have a brilliant way with words, sir. Thank you.