A safe place for difficult conversations
The Scotsman reported on reaction to Edinburgh University’s publication of an amateurish tendentious article about “transphobia” as part of its official guidance on inclusion.
ForWomenScot posted: “We are deeply troubled to see this from @EdinburghUni. Female lecturers are routinely harassed & put in fear on campus for arguing for legal rights. However, the university have chosen to publish a deeply political piece, misrepresenting women’s concerns.”
Susan Smith, a spokeswoman for the group, said the article, which appears on the Equality, Diversity and Inclusion section of the university’s website, was “hugely biased” and much of it was “a low-grade attempt at a smear campaign”.
The article treats the nonsensical doctrine that men can magically become women just by “feeling like women inside” as not a childish fantasy but settled fact. A university shouldn’t do that.
Ms Smith said: “One of the silliest things is this idea that safety and privacy for women are not compromised if you allow people to self-ID into women’s spaces. That’s clearly a nonsense and it shouldn’t even be a point of contention.”
That is, if you allow men to self-ID into women’s spaces. It has been made incredibly difficult to hang onto the language of reality.
A university spokesman said: “The University of Edinburgh is a safe place for difficult conversations. We are committed to defending freedom of speech and expression, as long as it is carried out within the law and in a respectful manner.
“The web-page in question was designed as a resource to support students, inform discussion, and help promote a respectful, diverse and inclusive community.”
How can it do any of that by posting what look like dispassionate factual explanations but are in fact the tenets of a new and ridiculous ideology? How can it do that by asserting that men are women if they identify as such?
“Given the size of our community, it is inevitable that the ideas of different members will often and, quite naturally, conflict. We encourage members of our community to use their judgement and openly contest ideas that they oppose, and feel protected in doing so.”
But the article in question asserted the claims of trans ideology as if they were simple facts, similar to saying Edinburgh is 47 miles from Glasgow. The claims of trans ideology are magical, and childish, and silly. Students aren’t going to “feel protected” in that situation, except maybe the trans ones.
I agree with that. Safety and privacy for women are compromised if you allow men to self-ID into women’s speaces, so to claim that they are “not compromised” is a silly thing. But I think that the writer didn’t mean that….
What do you mean?
Susan Smith is speaking in defense of the University of against it?
Oooooh! I see. “Susan Smith, a spokeswoman for the group…”. The group = ForWomenScot, not Edinburgh University.
The ideas, silly and childish as they are, have grabbed hold of the language so fiercely that it is difficult not to use their terms anyway.
‘Transwomen’? Let’s not ever use that again, because it cedes too much. How about ‘men demanding that we pretend we think that they are women’? Too long, dammit. ‘Men who say they identify as women’… Screech of brakes Hang on. Back up a bit. Since when have we been ignoring their use of ‘identify’ as if it were an intransitive verb? Which word are they deliberately omitting so that it is impossible to see what they are really saying?
‘Men who identify – as women.’
‘Men who identify themselves as women’. Not only is that grammatically correct, it now shows how stupid the concept is.
Ah, yes, that took me a second too.
Why, how?
The issue of compromising the safety of women in previously safe spaces if men are allowed to self-identify themselves into those spaces has been raised before, and brushed aside with the pathetic response that literally nobody [by which they mean ‘no woman’, but the ‘w’ word is forbidden] has ever been harmed by this policy so you’re just scaremongering, or words to that effect. That response totally ignores the blindingly obvious reason for the lack of women harmed by this policy: men have not been able to self-identify their way into womens’ spaces before. Effectively, the TRAs are gambling the safety of women in order to stage an experiment, but pretending it’s safe by citing zero historical harms caused before the fucking experiment has begun.
That’s like claiming that a brand-new, never-before seen type of drug is perfectly safe to use because it’s never caused problems before.
That’s the kind of thing that Trump might promote.
But this is interesting. Is it, indeed, the case, that despite several years of TIM-inclusive women’s spaces, there hasn’t yet been a single assault? If that is indeed the case, that is really interesting, given that we’ve seen how violent TIMs have been against women in public mixed-sex spaces (e.g. Tara Wolf and company).
GW, it isn’t true. But for TRAs, all data points are allowed to be waived if they don’t support the trans position (in fact, required to be waived). They may just say that person wasn’t really trans. But if you ever suggest that any trans person isn’t really trans, then you will be told that you are committing literal violence, and you are to accept their self-ID. Violating the rules is allowed only for those who assume that TWAW, and that deny all negative consequences from such a strange and nonsensical doctrine.
I wonder what the status is on TIMs in female safe spaces and what I’ll call ‘low-level’ assaults — not violence or overt attacks, but leering, peering, striking up an intrusive or inquisitive conversation, and the other annoyances women encounter from men outside the safe spaces. Some of that can be very disturbing or traumatic, and yet it’s not likely to be the sort of thing women report to the authorities because there’s usually a layer of plausible deniability involved. Maybe they were just checking to see if the stall was empty; maybe they were just being friendly. Or no they weren’t, but that’s what they’d say and do I want to risk looking like a transphobe or a Karen? Or maybe I’m a teenager who’d rather sink into the floor than draw more attention to myself. And who’d rather sink into the floor than go back.
The evidence for this would have to be anecdotal, then — and you know what they say about women who aren’t comfortable with Being Inclusive: “bitches lie.”
Yes. I can’t comment, since I’m not a women, and therefore (shockingly) don’t spend time in female safe spaces, but if any of the women that comment here have experienced this, if they feel safe reporting this, I’d be curious to hear.
Interesting that they haven’t said that about Tara Wolf, as far as I’ve heard. In fact, during his court case, the judge kept correcting the defendant every time she used a mail pronoun for her attacker.
Yeah, I don’t know if they say that or not; it’s just…sort of like Christians. Oh, he isn’t a “real” Christian! Whatever the hell that means.
As for the way TiMs interact with females, Jessica Yaniv comes to mind.
Right, beautician’s studios (or whatever the proper term is for the room where a Brazilian bikini wax is performed) count as women’s spaces, but they’re not public women’s spaces like bathrooms or changing rooms.
I know that Jessica Yaniv wrote things online about how he wants to interact with women in women’s bathrooms (it’s horrible), but I don’t know if he have ever actually done so in such spaces.
There have been incidents, assaults, harassment, and more. The website Women Are Human (www.women are human.com) gathers examples, as does transcrimeuk, (transcrimeuk.com/) This Never Happens and more.
For quick reference, google Katie Dolotowski, Patrick Hagan, Madilyn Harks, Tyler Porter (he self IDed into a women’s shelter and wandered around nude with morning wood, and tweeted the secret address of the shelter – the women who complained were called transphobes).
Thanks. Ew. Ew.
There’s also Mark/Melissa Addis, who harassed women at a women’s shelter during regular visits, despite being theoretically housed at the nearby inclusive shelter. The Daily Mail covered this.
As you point out though, no one knows. I’ve had arguments with TRAs online where they’ll swear no woman has been raped by a male in women’s prison, unless you mean by guards, because they’ve never heard of Karen White. Others will dismiss you quoting Karen White because “that’s just one”. Any discussion of this is deemed transphobic, which was what I thought initially too. But, anything you can’t discuss for fear of being thought a bigot, especially when the aggressors have social power (in this case, males), will only get worse.
GW, why don’t you re-read my whole comment, where I explain the reasoning, instead of just quoting the last sentence and acting baffled?
Tigger, I did read your comment. And I agree that whoever controls the language controls the debate.
I certainly think that in the following pair of sentences, the listener (and courts, and lawmakers) would be likely to laugh at sentence 1, and feel obligated to comply with sentence 2:
1. Males who self-identify as trans have every right to women’s facilities, just as black women or indigenous women or any other women do!
2. Trans women have every right to women’s facilities, just as black women or indigenous women or any other women do!
However, I don’t see how using “identify” as an transitive (and in this instance, reflexive) verb makes the concept of self-ID sound much sillier than using “identify” as an intransitive verb (as TRAs do).
There’s often a Catch-22 when it comes to providing links to sites which have collected dozens of examples of TIMs harassing women in safe spaces: they’re seen as transphobic.
“Show me some evidence that there are problems.”
“Here.”
“What a hateful site! Transphobes are obviously obsessed.”
Sastra — right!
That site is triggering me! If you link to that site, you are literally committing violence aganist me! ;-)
I think the key is the coerced belief of others. As Tigger pointed out above “transwomen” cedes too much ontological territory. Would anyone call someone pretending to be a surgeon, pilot , or police officer a “trans-surgeon”, a “transpilot” or a “transpolice officer” and allow them access to facilities and responsibilities reserved for actual surgeons, pilots, and law enforcement officers? Is putting on the uniform enough? Sure, some might pass, but one’s perspective might change if you’re the one going under the knife, into the are or pulled over at the side of the road. What if a person identified (themselves) as an ocelot or an invertebrate? Is one required to go along with either of those “identities” on their say so alone? Is it reasonable to expect others to accept such an identity? Would you nod, smile and say, “That’s nice”, or would you be questioning that individual’s mental health?
The demand that trans identified males be accepted and recognized as women is more like the latter case of identification as a species or phylum one is not, rather than a profession one is not, because there are recognized and systematic standards of training and certification for attaining professional status by which one can become accredited. There is no way in which a human can change species or phylum, however fervent the desire to do so. Wearing a fur coat, or dressing as a butterfly is not enough to transcend the material bounds imposed by the realities of biology. There are no courses of training or vocational schools that will turn you into a feline carnvore or a creaure without a backbone. Nor is there a way for a human male to become a human female. There are fundamental biological differences between women and men. On top of this, there are layers of socially constructed gendered expectations, limitations, and taboos which have been attached to the two biological sexes. Being a women is not a profession or job description. It is not a costume or uniform, but the “costume” and “uniform” of the superficial layers of cullturally constructed gendered stereotypes is all that men have available to them in any attempt to become “women.” Extreme transactivism demands that we accept the equivalent of “trans-surgeons” and “transpilots”: wearing the “uniform” is all that’s required (and sometimes not even that). Even “non-extreme” trans activism sometimes comes across as still thinking that being a female is more like entering a profession than getting around immutible biological realities. What requirements there may be are intended to weed out those who are not serious about their need to transition, to meet some “standards” before being permitted to change their legal status. I don’t deny the fact that for some men, this is likely the best course of action for their personal wellbeing. Some may undergo extensive medical intervention, and these individuals may be issued certificates, but these are still legal fictions. Accepting this legal fiction does not alter reality, and should not be used as the thin edge of the wedge for self-ID. This would open the doors to predators and opportunists, as they put on dresses and lipstick to take advantage of these lowered standards to be accepted into the “profession” of womanhood. Call them “Ma’am?” No, “sir.”
I once wrote a play based on the idea of people changing species in a world post-DNA revolution (where somehow we acquired the ability to alter our DNA). It was based on thinking brought about by Ionesco’s brilliant absurdist play, Rhinoceros, and the knowledge of how close the rhinoceros is to extinction. I began to think, would it be so bad if humans turned into rhinoceroses? I mean, we have lots of humans and only a few rhinoceroses, so…I wrote a play around that premise. It was a play based solidly in an environmental foundation.
I had to abandon it, because everyone thought it was a play about how we need to be more accepting of trans.
I fear that we may be headed in that direction….
What a great idea! Solve so many problems at once!
It’s like solving the problem of the lack of women in STEM fields, or political power, or whatever, by simply redefining enough men as women! And of course this works retroactively, as well; it’s super yucky to think that there haven’t been lots of female US vice presidents.
As Sastra points out, “transwomen” indicates an ontological category. This cedes the intelligibility of that category, but more importantly it elides meaning. It hides the fundamental claim being made by a male person: “I am female.”
Similarly, “men who (self)identify as women” masquerades as one sort of thing by virtue of soft language. The phrasing is, I suspect, derived from polling, in which all we get is someone’s act of identification; i.e., their claim to be something. However, its use has spread to just about everything that someone is. One identifies as male, female, Christian, Jewish, gay, straight, old, young, fat, slim, etc. As interpreted, this identification is not the act of representing that one is the thing in question; it is the state of being that thing. When someone prone to this sort of speech refers to identities, it’s to brute facts of existence. That is, “P identifies as X” means that P just is X. A man who identifies as Jewish just is a Jew. A Christian who identifies as a straight male just is as straight male. And so on. Consider, then, the phrase “man who identifies as a woman”. How is that read? As a man who just is a woman.
Switching from the intransitive phrasing to the reflexive transitive might differ just enough from the soft usage that it can’t readily be interpreted in the same manner. “P identifies him/her-self to be X,” is still usually interpreted as reporting P’s claim to be X rather than reporting that P just is X.
Hmm. So they really are that crazy, I guess. When they say “I identify as X”, they don’t simply mean “I report my identity as X, and therefore it’s rude for you to question it”, but rather: “This very statement makes me X. Oh, and by the way, fuck you.”
Yes, they are precisely that crazy. The majority of people who use the phrase “P identifies as X” use it as a synonym for “P is X”, and that’s confusing enough. The hard social constructivists who make up the “studies” departments in general and the genderists in particular, however, use it to mean that and to mean a speech act that makes P an X. For them, identifying as X is constitutive of being X. Being X is constitutive of identifying as X.
There’s a sentiment in some sports commentary that goes along the lines of, “It’s not a foul if it doesn’t get called.” Now, to an extent that’s true, when we take “not a foul” to mean “no foul was called”. However, to the larger extent, that’s some grade A bullshit. The occurrence of a foul on a play is what a referee is supposed to recognize and penalize. The foul temporally and logically precedes the call, not the other way around.
The same fallacious sentiment resides in, “It’s not illegal if you don’t get caught.” And in that tweet Ophelia linked the other day about sex categories. And in, “I’m a girl, so this is a girl’s penis.” These people reverse the order of inference, which they feel justified in doing because logic is restrictive and therefore oppressive. Words’ meanings must be “destabilized” and “queered” in order to free people from their shackles. This isn’t a new idea. It’s been around for decades. Just recall the attempts by French activists to remove the legal category of child sexual abuse, because it’s only bad because we call it rape. Then there were the German communes that took this idea and put it into practice. I recommend against reading accounts of those.
Problem is, this mode of thought has metastasized. It’s no longer manageable, containable.
I’m reminded of this:
Shades of Heisenberg and Schrodinger!
found here: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/169132/what-is-the-origin-of-i-calls-em-like-i-sees-em
I’m going to use that umpire story from now on. It’s perfect.
I’m thinking of abandoning the whole “identify as” or “identify themselves as” vocabulary in favor of something like “men who wish they were women.”
“Identify as” is slippery, agreed, but “wish they were” is just aspiration, not a claim. Lots of people “wish they were” something without actually claiming falsely they’ve achieved that state. I’ve started using “men who say they are women” or “men who claim to be women”.