Guest post: A difference which makes no difference is no difference
Originally a comment by Artymorty on We can’t tell.
Trans activists have insisted their goal is to remove all distinctions between transwomen and women, but they have an unspoken secondary objective: the removal of all distinctions between transwomen and men. And when your group is literally indistinguishable from men, you don’t get to simultaneously argue that your group is distinguishable from them. If these people insist they aren’t men, why the hell are they working so hard to dismantle every possible metric, every check and balance that could be used to separate “genuine” transwomen from ordinary men?
It’s trans activists who insisted on removing all material distinctions between transwomen and men, complaining that womanhood was being guarded by “gatekeepers.” Once, transwomen were distinguished from men by the degree of “meaningful” transition they made, which was overseen by psychiatrists and doctors. Thanks to trans activism: no longer. There’s no certification process, no need to have sex-reassignment surgery; trans activists no longer recognize the relevance of different degrees of transition. Any man who says he isn’t a man isn’t a man, period. Any attempt to put a measure in place to distinguish men from transwomen for the obvious sake of protecting women from men is furiously attacked by transactivists. When your movement explicitly works to dismantle the gatekeeping that protects women from men, you don’t get to complain when women become alarmed that your movement is dismantling the gatekeeping that protects women from men.
It’s trans activists who have insisted that people’s motives are irrelevant: anyone who wants to be taken as a woman anytime is “genuinely” trans, and to even privately wonder why someone wants you to act as though they’re a woman is a thoughtcrime. Once, the reason someone wanted to transition was the most important factor in their journey: clinicians worked with patients over a long time to examine the underlying “why,” to ensure they wouldn’t be harming themselves or others. Thanks to trans activism: no longer. Trans activists will never violate a person’s declared pronouns even when he is an obvious conman, troll or predator. When your movement explicitly bars anyone from even examining the possibility that some men are taking advantage of the open barriers to women’s spaces your movement has created, one has to wonder whether your movement’s alliance is exclusively to men’s interests and not women’s, and that perhaps on some deep level you still see yourselves as a subset of men, and not a subset of women.
The definition of trans has been systematically loosened and broadened; every step of the way trans activists have worked to bring trans-identifying males closer to women while simultaneously working to stay connected to their own manhood. Back in the days before we started calling transsexuals transgender, I might have been more sympathetic to the idea that trans women are women. Now that any Tom, Dick or Yaniv can be a woman whenever he wants, no questions asked, forget it.
Men do pose a danger to women. Of that there’s no question. And transwomen are men because, as William James said, a difference which makes no difference is no difference.
Thanks for this concise analysis of the situation. I want to memorize it! So I have archived it: https://archive.is/GWLuP . <3
Logically speaking (as in actual Philosophy 110 logic) the path to TWAW requires the dissolution of category boundaries. Specifically, the boundary between ‘man’ and ‘woman’. Our initial state of affairs is ∀m∈M: m∉W∧ ∀w∈W: w∉M. And yet, TRAs want us to deny that not all “men” are non-women. This necessarily requires us to destroy our understanding of both ‘man’ and woman, as now ∃m∈M: m∈W. But that’s a contradiction. (And by ex falso quodlibet, from a contradiction we can derive literally, and I do mean this, anything.)
We can resolve the contradiction by
i. abandoning our knowledge of M and W (that is, that {} = M∩W).
ii. rejecting the claim that ∃m∈M: m∈W
iii. assuming other people know better than we do and just repeating the Nicene, er, Transcene Creed.
Well played!
Dignifying TRA claims as being any sort of “argument” is giving them more respect than they desrve, as they seem to do their best to shut and shout down any sort of argument or discussion period. At the same time, pointing out the results we get when their claims are put into the structure of an argument shows how empty and hopelessly contradictory they in fact are, and exactly why they are so desperately adamant to avoid such argument or discussion.
This is an excellent post. Those boundaries are creeping. But I don’t agree that removing all distinctions between trans women and men is one of their objectives: I think it’s an unintended consequence.
TRAs are heavily invested in the idea that trans individuals are the only legitimate judges of who does, and doesn’t, fit into the transgender category. That’s in good part fueled by their view of themselves as victims of an oppressive majority which wants to see them eliminated. One way of getting rid of trans people would be to draw strict lines limiting membership — “sorry, you’re not trans because you don’t fit a hostile society’s narrow rules on classification.” Because they so deeply resent “gatekeeping” by outsiders, they’re going to be as generous as possible to anyone claiming insider status. “We” are in a war against “Them” — the ones who want to erase us by denying our existence. Thus, we don’t deny ourselves. We welcome and embrace.
And they’re not going to particularly notice or care that this is removing the boundary between trans women and men.
I don’t think the paranoia should be underestimated. It’s a significant factor. Are they still seeing themselves, deep down, as men? Or are the moving boundaries a manifestation of the fact that they see themselves as the ultimate victims, and believe it to the core? I’ve been struck by how easily and quickly they can insist that people “hate” them. If I were going to speculate, I might wonder if there’s some self-hatred hiding there in all the defensive anger and loathing.