Your Claim That You Know Your Mind Better Than Me Is A Weak Defence
In the pantheon of quotes attributed to Mark Twain, one of my favourites is, “If you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.”
Partly because I don’t like remembering things, but mainly because the truth is our only path to a shared reality. Even—and often especially— if it’s unpopular.
In my article, The Degrading Message Behind Dylan Mulvaney’s Daily Misogyny, I told the truth about Dylan Mulvaney, a tale that began with his perpetual thirst for attention, peaked as he struck gold with his “girl” identity (one of many he tried on during the pandemic), and ended with Kid Rock emptying several clips into a six-pack of Bud Light.
A couple of weeks ago, I posted this conversation from that article with a reader named Kitten. But a few days later, Kitten had more to say. So as I hate to give anything less than a full accounting of the views of the people I talk to, here’s the final part.
To refresh your memory, Kitten had just finished informing me that it was much more likely I’d written about Dylan Mulvaney because I “wanted publicity,” than because I have an issue with misogynistic grifters.
Thankfully, as I pointed out, it doesn’t really matter what Kitten thinks.
Kitten:
“Well, what you find likely isn't really at issue here is it? You're talking to the person who wrote the piece.”
It's called an accusation. It generally works by critisizing the argument and the rhetorical techniques used. Your claim that it's incorrect because you as the author know your own mind better is kind of a weak defense.
I think you massively overestimate Mulvaneys influence on the discourse on trans people (such as it is). Also, articles like yours do not help cis people to get to know trans people better.
If you are indeed constantly bemused by how often trans people would rather attack criticism of, as you call it, grifters, it's because of the way this criticism is voiced. To reiterate: it typically is written in a way that ostensibly attacks the person in question but is also quite good at evoking fear and disgust at trans people in general, so its hardly the support you make it out to be.
You said you find it baffling that quoting people who literally said that trans women are not women is somehow an issue in an article ostensibly differentiating between not-trans-not-women grifters (your opinion) and normal trans women.
If you truly do not see the problem here, let me spell it out for you: You make a long and vicious argument that one person who says they are trans and a women (or girl) is, in fact, not. You also quote people who say that all trans women are not women. This would lead a typical reader to conclude that you want to make the argument that trans women are not women, because that's the way citations usually work. This is not about something someone might have said on twitter some years ago without really meaning it, these are carefully considered opinions those people published purposefully and you linked directly too and they are obviously relevant to the argument you are making, so I really do not understand your bafflement.
“The irony lies in the fact that you're accusing me of generalising one insincere trans person out to the entire "trans femme" community when, in fact, you're generalising criticism of one insincere trans person out to the entire "trans femme" community.”
I see how this point might have been lost in transmission and hope I have made it a little bit clearer.
“Dylan is not all trans femme people. I'm aware of that in my criticisms. Are you?”
Sure. However, you used a ton of arguments (like "womanhood is not a costume" , "womanface" and "it's just a phase for him"...) that could be used against any trans feminine person. It's not a stretch to think they are understood this way.
“I don't think it's on you to "weigh the whole of my soul." No idea what you're talking about here.”
I was being sarcastic about your continued defense of "I don't mean it that way". Just write what you mean and own up to what you wrote.
“I'm saying that young, impressionable people (often girls) are having false, incoherent ideas about sex and gender presented to them as answers to their feelings of discomfort during puberty or as an answer to sexual trauma they've experienced, again, often during puberty.”
Sounds like a huge problem. Surely it's discussed seriously in medical journals and the like?
“It's incredibly hard for me to believe that you're unaware of this, but if you are, read r/detrans on reddit”
..... right. Yes, a few cases like these exist and are, of course, tragic. However, anecdotes are not data and in the majority of cases, the reasons for detransition are lack of societal acceptance. Quite a few trans men take a lot of time and quite a few attempts to be themselves, because knowing better than a mere "girl" is quite typical for anyone in a patriarchical society, so they have to keep "trying to convince other people to play along with" it, instead of just being allowed to be who they are.
Also, your swipe at the medical industry has not gone unnoticed. Yes, a lot of trans people are dependent on it. No, it does not mean we are lesser (or that there is a conspiracy). Yes, medical malpractise happens, but I fail to see how accidently saying that one field of medicine is lucrative is the journalistic bombshell you make it out to be. Lot's of them are and proper care is sometimes lost to greed. Still does not make being trans a medical phenomenon.
The problem for us "trans activists" (or trans people with enough self-respect to speak out), is that typical cis people know next to nothing about the medical side of being trans and present the horror stories they somehow found on their internet "research" as the cornerstone of their beliefs about trans people and still want to have a discussion where they believe they are better informed than actual trans people. So it's on us to educate each and every single one of them, again and again and again, from the time we come out to our family, till our deathbed. It's just exhausting.
“A quote of a statement is an endorsement of that statement. Not of everything the person who made it ever said.”
That's not how it works in humanities. If you quote a philosopher, it's expected you know their works well enough and either agree or contrast. Also, you quoted (thus endorsed) a lengthy paragraph that called child-rearing (sex, and currently not possible to trans women, unless it becomes so and that goalpoast gets moved again) real and superficial things like gender false, I totaly fail to see how that is not biological essentialism (in which trans women are not women) . Never mind that a lot of cis women also rightfully object to being reduced to incubators and mothers and prefer to also be people in their own right and not just in relation to others...
Steve QJ:
“That's not how it works in humanities.”
Well, then I'm relieved this isn't a humanities lecture. And that you're not in a position to grade my work.
How it works in the real world is that you don't get to tell people (especially complete strangers) what they think or what they mean. This is widely and correctly viewed as stupid and arrogant. Instead, you can have a conversation with them and learn what they think by listening to the answers to your questions.
You can, of course, explain how something they said came across to you. There will often be disconnects here. And talking about those disconnects can be valuable to both parties. That's one reason why I spend so much time engaging with readers. But given that you are not in the person's head, it's almost always going to be on you to recognise that your interpretation might be inaccurate.
As far as "trans women are women," my take is, and has always been, that trans women are trans women. I've asked countless times, in person and online, and nobody has ever explained why acknowledging this is a problem.
The word "woman" (or its linguistic equivalent) is used by very slightly less than 100% of the world to refer to adult human females. This is true even in countries and cultures that embraced gender-non-conformity millennia before we did in the West. The Kathoey in Thailand are considered distinct from Thai women. The various two-spirit identities in Indigenous cultures are considered extra "genders" distinct from women. The Muxe, the Hijra, the kha’-nun-tha’ triad of the Arabian peninsula, these are all distinct from women in their respective cultures.
This isn't bigotry. It's not transphobia. It's not "biological essentialism." It's just the commonly understood definition of a word. This bizarre campaign to reframe simple, neutral, widely used language as hatred or oppression is truly surreal. And only serves to distract from (and in some cases increase) the actual discrimination that trans people face.
If trans women literally are women, what is transition? What is gender dysphoria? If women can have penises and men can have vaginas, what is the "mismatch" between their bodies and minds that trans people speak about?
Lastly, yes, at least as it's commonly thought of today, being trans is a medical phenomenon. Being trans in 2023 is pretty much synonymous with puberty blockers and hormones and surgery. And while I firmly believe that adults should be free to do whatever they want with their bodies, I think far greater care needs to be taken with children. Care which, again, is very clearly not being taken in many well-documented cases.
And yes, actually, this "huge problem" is being seriously discussed in medical journals and the like.
“As far as "trans women are women," my take is, and has always been, that trans women are trans women. I've asked countless times, in person and online, and nobody has ever explained why acknowledging this is a problem.”
As I was writing this paragraph, I considered adding that when I ask why acknowledging this is a problem, one of two things typically happens:
A) The person I’m talking to runs away, frustrated that they can’t justify their desire to appropriate womanhood in its entirety.
Or B) they block me…frustrated that they can’t justify their desire to appropriate womanhood in its entirety.
Kitten chose the latter.
It’s so frustrating that this has become a central pillar of trans discourse. Because, as I said to Kitten, the “trans women are women” arm of trans discourse is among the purest acts of self-sabotage I’ve ever seen.
For everybody outside of a tiny echo chamber on the left, a woman is an adult human female. Just as for everybody outside of a tuny echo chamber on the right, trans people are deserbing of the same dignity and respect as everybody else.
But if a willingness to lie about what a woman is remains a condition of trans acceptance, more and more people will choose the truth.
Trans women are trans women. This isn’t an insult, it’s not hate, it’s true in the simplest, most obvious sense of the word. And the truth is important. If only the extremists could remember that.
An amusing sidebar to this sentence: "The various two-spirit identities in Indigenous cultures"...
This term was (disputedly) coined by a non-indigenous fellow from San Francisco, part of the Radical Faerie movement, and has no historical basis in any indigenous culture. Despite being adopted by many (often younger) indigenous folks. Even its Ojibwe translation is translating the original American-Canadian English term, not vice versa. The designation "two-spirit" is about as culturally real as the term "Latinx"
Just thought you'd enjoy that fun factoid!
When people use the phrase "dog whistle" they claim to know your thoughts better than you. A man with a hammer sees nails everywhere. There is often a difference in what you said and what people heard after it's passed through the filter of their own bias filters. But the idea that trans is a nessissary prefix and cis is not is something that doesn't get an honest and logical counter argument, just a block.