Guest post: Implicit framing
Originally a comment by Bjarte Foshaug on What do we lose?
On a related note, one of the take-home messages common to authors who have studied the rise of authoritarian populism (Snyder, Mounk, Applebaum, Temelkuran, Levtisky/Ziblatt etc.) that I think applies to the Gender Wars as well is to not concede the other side’s language with its implicit framing of the issue (the “ordinary”/”real” people who vote for the populist vs. the “elite” who don’t etc.). This is why I cringe whenever gender critical people start talking in terms of “cis” vs. “trans” women etc. As I have previously written, “cis woman” is not another word for “biological female”. Indeed, referring to biological females in Genderspeak is no more possible than referring to political freedom in Newspeak. Even “cis” women are entirely defined in terms of “female”/”feminine” ways of thinking and feeling* (best left unspecified), while anyone who fails to think/feel in the ways required doesn’t qualify as a “woman” of any kind. The only relevant difference is that the “cis” women accept the “gender” they were “assigned at birth” (with all its implicit cultural “baggage”) while the “trans” women do not.
Buying into the “cis” vs. “trans” framework, concedes the idea that there is indeed such a category as “women” (once again, defined in terms of “female”/”feminine” ways of thinking and feeling) that “cis” and “trans” women are both different versions/subsets of, to the exclusion of both “cis” and “trans” men (defined in terms of “male”/”masculine” ways of thinking and feeling), but the “TERFs” are arbitrarily choosing to exclude one subset of “women” out of pure bigotry and hate (hence the obligatory attempts to lump in “trans women” with “black women”, “disabled women”, “working class women” etc.).
Instead of conceding their framing we should make it clear that TIM’s and biological females are not different versions of “women” any more than flying mammals and clubs for hitting baseballs are different versions of “bats”. There is no non-trivial definition that applies to both at the same time. Being a “man” or “woman” is about biological sex or it isn’t about anything at all. If biological sex is not a valid category, then neither is “man” or “woman”. There is no such thing as a “male” or “female”, “masculine” or “feminine” way of thinking or feeling, which means there is no “gender” which means there is no “gender binary”, which means there is no “cis”, which means we’re pretty much all “non-binary” or “gender non-conforming” or – even better – “agender”. If the gender concept applies to people on the trans spectrum (or their allies who will say anything to make the TRAs right and us wrong), they are pretty much the only ones to whom it applies as far as I’m concerned. If trans women are women, they are the only “women”. If trans men are men, then I’m not.
*They are women₂ rather than women₁ as I have previously put it.
I agree; we should stop using their language. I have taken to talking about men pretending to be women, for example. If there is a ‘gender binary’, then we are all ‘non-binary’ not least because the definition of what it means to perform femininity or masculinity ‘correctly’ has changed, drastically, several times in my lifetime alone.
Yes. We should cede no ground; too many people have granted trans activists too much benefit of the doubt, too much rhetorical wiggle room. My own thinking has changed over time, shifting from that of a naive, unthinking, uncritical, reflexive “progressive” acceptance of trans claims, to a much more gender-critical, approach. My own usage now:
Trans Identified Male/Female TIM/TIF (not “transwoman” or “transman.”) “transwomen” are NOT women. They remain male. (“But dude, TWAW: it’s right in the name!” Counter argument: “Seahorsesare horses, hot dogs are dogs.” “What are the differences between a trans identified male, an otherkin/furry, and Rachel Dolezal? Why are we suposed to believe the claims made by the first of these three, but not the other two?”)
Trans Activists (not “Trans Rights Activists.” Their demands are not for “rights.”)
Trans identified people have the same rights to safety, freedom from discrimination, persecution, etc. as everyone else. Their self-identification as the sex opposite from the one they are does not make them the sex they are not, and does not entitle them to any particular rights reserved exclusively to the sex they are not.
Disphoric children (not “Trans kids.” It’s not a club. Saying they are “trans” should be a conclusion reached after all other possibilities of comorbidity have been exhausted. It should not be a starting point. Minors are mentally mentally and emotionally unprepared to make such drastic, life-altering, body damaging decisions.There is no such thing as the “wrong” puberty.)
Sex is real: gender is bullshit. Everyone is “non-binary.” Nobody is “cis.” Sex is binary, immutable, and observed at birth or before. (Sex is not a “spectrum.” It is not “assigned” at birth.)
Homosexuality is same-sex attraction.
“Gender identity” has nothing to do with sexual orientation. TIMs cannot be lesbians. TIFs cannot be gay men.
I have no say in the pronouns anyone chooses to use when referring to me.
I reserve the right to correctly sex someone with the pronouns of my choice. It is my choice to do otherwise as an extended courtesy, not as a demand or under compulsion.
I reserve the right to refer to someone by their former legal name.
Women’s sex-based rights, accommodations and boundaries, are not “transphobic.” The Staniland question,
“Do you believe that male-sexed people should have the right to undress and shower in a communal changing room with women and girls?” is not transphobic. Claims that it is “transphobic” demonstrate that there is indeed a conflict between the rights of women and the demands (NOT “rights”) of trans identified males. Refusal to answer this question demonstrates a lack of good faith on the part of the party so refusing.
What a great thread. I particularly like YNnB’s #2: Succinct and thorough.
Indeed. There isn’t a single right that I am granting myself that I’m not also granting trans people, so if I’m discriminating against them, I am also discriminating against myself. I would be very surprised if the same thing didn’t apply to the vast majority of gender critical people. The right to use “gender-appropriate” bathrooms (etc.) does not count, since anything that’s “gendered” in any way is “gender-inappropriate” and any “gendering” what so ever is “misgendering” as far as I’m concerned.
The again, it’s not about having “the same rights av everyone else”, is it? It’s about those additional rights that come with being a person of gender that the rest of us are not entitled to.
I will not use the term “cis,” except in quotation marks to indicate I’m talking about the term itself, and not applying the underlying network of assumptions implicit in its use. But, when in hostile territory and trying to break through prejudices to show the problems with Trans ideology, I see no practical way around using at least “transwoman” (“though never “trans woman.”) Throw too much at once, and they’ll shut down. Or shut you down. Baby steps … 2 forward, one back.
It’s become such a crazy dance. A clearly regressive, conservative, pseudoscientific, anti-feminist and anti-gay program has managed to ingratiate itself into the minds of liberal intellectuals as The Next Great Leap Forward in human rights. And, like other great leaps forward, the intellectually liberal process of discussion, debate, and respect for the Agora has turned into a need to hunt down the wicked and either force humble retractions or cast out with great theater and show.