I’ve been writing a lot about abortion lately—find me an American feminist who hasn’t—and every time I sit down and start to type, I think about a conversation I had with a friend of mine who identifies as trans. This friend expressed feeling hurt when I had referred to abortion as a women’s rights issue and when I’d objected to language like ‘uterus-havers' and ‘birthing bodies.’
And why exactly can't your friend, out of love for you, accept those two small words instead of seeing them as a personal attack? Why the expectation that you should conform to your friend's way of thinking purely out of loyalty rather than actual agreement, to abandon your convictions? Why does so much of gender ideology require abject allegiance, compelled speech, and thought policing? Where is the love in that?
"Yet every time I write about abortion now, I know that the language I use will be experienced by someone I love—and in a way by me, myself, every time I use these contested words—as a callous act, a form of rejection."
Any callousness and rejection is not yours, Eliza. It sits squarely on the shoulders of those that redefine what women are, and how your experiences are named and described. These people are usurping a position, and like all usurpers, are doing it only for their own power.
May 5, 2022·edited May 5, 2022Liked by Eliza Mondegreen
I love this piece because, for me it really gets to the heart of the issue. All your pieces do, but this one even more so.
Why, exactly, are we expected to jettison our own beliefs to accommodate others’? What is it about their beliefs that are more important?
Someone said, ‘He who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities’ and they were right. Once you eschew objective reality, how do you know you’ve really murdered someone, oppressed them or disfigured them for life?
For me, that makes — if any ideas are more important than others — the ideas that are founded in the objective reality we share more important. They’re more worthy of respect because we can all access them and communicate about them. In a conflict between our feelings about reality and evidence about reality, evidence has to win.
In a sense, it almost doesn’t matter what great casualties will come from believing or validating the idea that there is a gendered soul; once you decide the evidence doesn’t matter, there’s bound to be one casualty or another.
You can’t change what’s in your friend’s head, but there is almost a duty not to accommodate it.
Women have long been accused of being "mean" or "selfish" when we won't acquiesce; guilt is one method of inducing us to drop our scruples and get back in line. "If you truly care for me, you'll do X". With all the conditioning we receive to "be nice/caring/accommodating", it's easy to assume a comment like that is true. "If I truly cared for them, I really would do X." And yet--as always--saying a thing doesn't make it so.
Is it true that "if I cared for this person, I'd do as they ask"? Is it possible to care for someone and not do as they ask? Certainly, because caring and obeying are not the same thing (despite what we've been taught). For many, it seems that being a good human--and maybe being a good woman--means obedience, acquiescence, subservience. But as we know, women's value does not reside in what we do for others.
I actually think it's a significant part of women's liberation to stop putting others' needs ahead of our own. To start showing up for ourselves with fierce compassion and integrity. To stop abandoning ourselves and each other even when we're exhorted to do so. And to see all of these as acts of deep respect both for ourselves and others.
You're currently the best writer on this subject, bar none. Thank you for helping me to respectfully express my views on this subject. You and your work are appreciated.
Unfortunately 'kindness' has empowered predatory behaviour, which ironically will create the 'tranny dystopia' the men in frocks pretend exists now. Whilst also pretending that everyone loves them, except evil queen Joanne and her serfs on Terf Island.
So well said, I have one friend, that I won’t cross, and it has meant that I am quiet on every social media (except when anonymous) and have closed myself off from my daughters and from friends. It’s very distressing.
May 5, 2022·edited May 5, 2022Liked by Eliza Mondegreen
Great essay. There are a few gc writers that compare gender ideology to a cult or an orthodox religion and as such, you are not allowed to stray from the "the truth." This is what is being exhibited here.
It's similar to when a long time ago a catholic woman engaged me in conversation and was obviously trying to evangelize me. When I told her I did not believe in god she tried to prove the existence of god with scripture. That was all she had, the "word." It's all very insular; you are not allowed critical thinking or opening your mind or else you might be punished and excommunicated. It's a philosophy based on fear and punishment. Religious people who are used to that are quite susceptible to the "charms" of gender philosophy.
And throughout this entire transgender craze, the perverted men in the pharmaceutical industry who are using their billions to push this ideology are laughing at all of us as they make even more billions out of the suffering of our young people. Their agenda is diabolical. Destroy the minds and bodies of our youth so as to better control them in the future.
Just spent a sleepless night over an argument about this exact issue. I can’t tell you how thankful I am to have found your substack in general and this post in particular. Thank you for making me feel sane again.
And why exactly can't your friend, out of love for you, accept those two small words instead of seeing them as a personal attack? Why the expectation that you should conform to your friend's way of thinking purely out of loyalty rather than actual agreement, to abandon your convictions? Why does so much of gender ideology require abject allegiance, compelled speech, and thought policing? Where is the love in that?
"Yet every time I write about abortion now, I know that the language I use will be experienced by someone I love—and in a way by me, myself, every time I use these contested words—as a callous act, a form of rejection."
Any callousness and rejection is not yours, Eliza. It sits squarely on the shoulders of those that redefine what women are, and how your experiences are named and described. These people are usurping a position, and like all usurpers, are doing it only for their own power.
"I am not going to make a habit of saying things I don’t believe, no matter how much other people want me to believe in those things"
Amen to that.
I love this piece because, for me it really gets to the heart of the issue. All your pieces do, but this one even more so.
Why, exactly, are we expected to jettison our own beliefs to accommodate others’? What is it about their beliefs that are more important?
Someone said, ‘He who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities’ and they were right. Once you eschew objective reality, how do you know you’ve really murdered someone, oppressed them or disfigured them for life?
For me, that makes — if any ideas are more important than others — the ideas that are founded in the objective reality we share more important. They’re more worthy of respect because we can all access them and communicate about them. In a conflict between our feelings about reality and evidence about reality, evidence has to win.
In a sense, it almost doesn’t matter what great casualties will come from believing or validating the idea that there is a gendered soul; once you decide the evidence doesn’t matter, there’s bound to be one casualty or another.
You can’t change what’s in your friend’s head, but there is almost a duty not to accommodate it.
Women have long been accused of being "mean" or "selfish" when we won't acquiesce; guilt is one method of inducing us to drop our scruples and get back in line. "If you truly care for me, you'll do X". With all the conditioning we receive to "be nice/caring/accommodating", it's easy to assume a comment like that is true. "If I truly cared for them, I really would do X." And yet--as always--saying a thing doesn't make it so.
Is it true that "if I cared for this person, I'd do as they ask"? Is it possible to care for someone and not do as they ask? Certainly, because caring and obeying are not the same thing (despite what we've been taught). For many, it seems that being a good human--and maybe being a good woman--means obedience, acquiescence, subservience. But as we know, women's value does not reside in what we do for others.
I actually think it's a significant part of women's liberation to stop putting others' needs ahead of our own. To start showing up for ourselves with fierce compassion and integrity. To stop abandoning ourselves and each other even when we're exhorted to do so. And to see all of these as acts of deep respect both for ourselves and others.
You're currently the best writer on this subject, bar none. Thank you for helping me to respectfully express my views on this subject. You and your work are appreciated.
Unfortunately 'kindness' has empowered predatory behaviour, which ironically will create the 'tranny dystopia' the men in frocks pretend exists now. Whilst also pretending that everyone loves them, except evil queen Joanne and her serfs on Terf Island.
So well said, I have one friend, that I won’t cross, and it has meant that I am quiet on every social media (except when anonymous) and have closed myself off from my daughters and from friends. It’s very distressing.
Why can't your friend just say "Let's agree to differ". It really is that simple.
I will continue to use the correct words for my reality.
Great essay. There are a few gc writers that compare gender ideology to a cult or an orthodox religion and as such, you are not allowed to stray from the "the truth." This is what is being exhibited here.
It's similar to when a long time ago a catholic woman engaged me in conversation and was obviously trying to evangelize me. When I told her I did not believe in god she tried to prove the existence of god with scripture. That was all she had, the "word." It's all very insular; you are not allowed critical thinking or opening your mind or else you might be punished and excommunicated. It's a philosophy based on fear and punishment. Religious people who are used to that are quite susceptible to the "charms" of gender philosophy.
And throughout this entire transgender craze, the perverted men in the pharmaceutical industry who are using their billions to push this ideology are laughing at all of us as they make even more billions out of the suffering of our young people. Their agenda is diabolical. Destroy the minds and bodies of our youth so as to better control them in the future.
Just spent a sleepless night over an argument about this exact issue. I can’t tell you how thankful I am to have found your substack in general and this post in particular. Thank you for making me feel sane again.