The adjective makes it true
Oh dear god the stupid.
Well, first, “trans women” isn’t a name. It may be a label, but at bottom what it is is a noun accompanied by an adjective. That’s all. You can attach any adjective to any noun; doing so doesn’t automatically create a truth. I could label Thomas Willett here “stupid boy” but that by itself wouldn’t make it true that Willett is a stupid boy.
Second…seriously?
Pretend women are women, it’s in the name.
Fake women are women, it’s in the name.
Bogus women are women, it’s in the name.
Counterfeit women are women, it’s in the name.
Imaginary women are women, it’s in the name.
Do we see the problem yet?
I have a dogwood tree in my yard. I trained him to sit and stay. Good dog.
“Women’s Ward” indicates purpose, not fact. “Trans women” putatively denotes fact.
The linguistic functions are different.
Never mind the coof, there’s a global pandemic of stupid.
twiliter, my dogwood has too much tendency to bark; I haven’t got it trained yet.
Another way in which ‘trans women’ is not like ‘indigenous women’ or ‘tall women’, etc, is that not even TRAs give trans a consistent and logical definition. Is a dorphenbunkle woman a woman? We know that indigenous women are women, without even having to think about it, because we know what indigenous means.
I remember Helen Joyce saying somewhere that the most common question she gets re the trans issue is whether trans women are men who identify as women or women who identify as men. The confusion is understandable. Adjectives usually modify nouns, not the other way around. Maybe we should go back to ‘female impersonator’. At least the term was easily and widely understood.
iknklast,
Brilliant. Just brilliant.