One of the strangest things about the clash over gender identity is the inadequacy of language to resolve it. It’s strange to be full of words and yet know they won’t bridge the divide. I’ll write words down and they turn on me. Anything I say comes out twisted, inside-out.
Indeed, this is a huge problem. I am working on writing my testimony for a bill in the WA state legislature that would limit public records disclosures about biological males being locked up with women in our state prison. If I refer to the people being transferred to women's prisons as "men," (the radical feminist approach, and in complete accord with how I see reality) that will be deemed highly offensive. If I refer to these individuals as "trans women" then I am repeating something that doesn't fit my own perception of reality. I do not believe men can be women of any kind.
"Biological males" is the compromise term I chose, even though that is not going to gain me much trust with those who disagree with me either. At least I am making the point that I am talking about differences in biology amongst humans. The bigger, stronger ones with weaponizable body parts. I do not want to be inflammatory, and I truly want to communicate with the Senators, who for the most part support the bill which they probably truly believe is protecting "vulnerable trans people" by denying information about them to the public. I do not wish to cause pain to anyone. I want people's ears to stay open to the very real pain being caused to women who must live there, locked up with men, many who have histories of abuse and rape. But I can only compromise so much: I do not subscribe to the tenets of this gender ideology and believe it to be very harmful, especially when coded into law as is happening right now in my state and everywhere in the world. Language has been gagged and chained, which makes communication with anyone who has subscribed to these religious beliefs so challenging in this moment.
That's really brave what you're doing. Good for you. I empathize with the struggle around language and feeling like there's no good fit. More power to you.
But entirely agree with your "the struggle around language" – pretty much a synopsis or thumbnail sketch of the whole issue. Many transactivists are apparently determined to corrupt the language by redefining terms like "woman" and "man" – and now even more fundamental and biologically-grounded terms like "male" and "female" – to comport with their dogma, with their envious delusions.
What's particularly sad if not galling is that so many ostensibly credible newspapers, like the UK Times, are pandering to those delusions, or are simply clueless or careless about their terminology. For instance, Canada's Toronto Sun had an article recently on Lia Thomas where they explicitly say:
"The polarizing University of Pennsylvania swimmer [Thomas] has broken several women’s records since transitioning from a male to a female."
Thomas has no more "transitioned from a male to a female" than I've "transitioned" to Donald Duck. I had posted a comment there objecting to their sloppy language but, maybe not surprisingly, they've deleted it. Rather disappointed in them and I expect I'll cancel my subscription to their paper – maybe throw it in Eliza's direction ... 😉
But as I've said over at GC News (worth a follow), the Daily Mail and the (UK) Times are equally guilty. Ditto the Guardian in their use of "trans woman" which is an egregious category error as it is asserting that human males can be human females. Which is flatly impossible, biologically speaking.
But see the link to my GC comment for the details, but something there from a Quillette article that bears repeating:
"Though different literary forms, the key message of both works [Orwell's 1984, & "Politics and the English Language] was the same: beware any person or group that redefines words so that they no longer align with facts, common sense, and common usage."
In any case, to change gears a bit, as a "therapist" you might like the following article at Cultural Anthropology by Sahar Sadjadi of the University of McGill, although you might find it more "frustrating" than not 🙂. But it's titled "Deep in the Brain: Identity and Authenticity in Pediatric Gender Transition", and this passage in particular gives something of the flavour or main elements in her argument:
"Moreover, the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations I witnessed was striking .... As a physician and anthropologist of medicine, I had begun this project as a critical study of a cutting-edge clinical field; I was perplexed by this merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition."
Maybe some merit, even a bit of science in the concept of gender, at least as "the range of [objectively quantifiable] characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them" as Wikipedia puts it. Rather less so in "gender identity" which looks more like a transmogrification of those characteristics – a "merging of science, magic, and religion", indeed.
Thanks for the journal link. I started to read it then got diverted by another article it mentioned that focuses on the history of the gender identity disorder (now, gender dysphoria) diagnosis. My many, competing interests sometimes leads to a shortened attention span.
To your point about the newspapers, I don't have much faith in them at the moment which is why it's nice to read well-written blogs like Eliza's. I also enjoy Deborah Cameron's blog "language: a feminist guide" for a linguist's take on all things gender and language.
De nada. Many different perspectives on "gender identity", and Sadjadi's seems one of the better ones. Though it wasn't clear from that article what she thought about the sex-gender dichotomy. Seems pretty much everyone has a different perspective on that dichotomy, or one of a smallish set of them which are largely contradictory, inconsistent, or incompatible. But that really isn't conducive to much progress.
"... shortened attention span"
I know the feeling. Difficult to remain focused when there are so many threads to follow, so many rabbit-holes too easy to get lost in.
"don't have much faith in them [newspapers]."
Nor I. But I don't think it's wise to abandon the field, to give free rein to the ideologues and peddlers of propaganda. Some necessity to try keeping them honest.
"Deborah Cameron's blog"
Thanks for the link; seems a pretty prolific writer:
Good luck with your project! I hope it changes some minds!
I got piled on by some people on Reddit (not difficult to do there ;-) ) when I used the phrase "natal men" instead of "AMAB"... the amount of hate directed at me for that simple yet clear language was insane.
Sorry to hear about the hate-filled pile-on. I wonder if the term "natal male" might arouse even marginally less pushback than "natal men"?
First, it's a better match: as "natal" describes condition at birth, whereas "men" refers to adulthood -- also the state that objectors most wish to deny.
"Natal male" might be harder to object to: as "male" describes sex and not gender -- so far as the terms "male" & "female" haven't been wholly captured & rendered meaningless (like "men" & "women").
Also, for as long as "AMAB / AFAB" are used by the trans lobby, this is tacit acceptance of the terms "male" and "female": leaving no logical grounds on which to object to the term "natal male" etc.
Of course logic is probably the last thing to resort to in trying to mention the unmentionable to people who basically want to get rid of the giveaway term "trans" altogether: to complete the gender change illusion (not so often a delusion).
PS the term I've recently come to value is "trans-identified male" (TIM). It acknowledges the trans claim & the ID claim, & supplies the natal sex from which "trans" derives meaning. All without mentioning women.
I think that "trans-identified male" would be even more strongly objected to by TRAs and some trans folks, because it says "You're really a male", the reality of which is one thing they object to as we all know. :-/
I don't think "natal male" would make a difference - anything that indicates that they were born male, and are still male despite their claimed identity gets pushback, I've found.
Thanks for the suggestions, tho'! I wish people on the TRA-and-"allies" side could have more sense in this regard, but we've found that's rare. :-(
I really don't think it's at all a question of belief, but of science and the logical consequences of our definitions. We ASSERT that, BY DEFINITION, "women" are "adult human females" and that "men" are "adult human males". And it is a scientific fact that humans simply can not be both males AND females:
Do you "believe" that an aircraft without an engine is a glider? Or do we SAY such an aircraft IS a glider? What would you say to someone who insisted that an aircraft WITH an engine was a glider?
Similarly with "male" and "female", and with consequential terms "man" and "woman":
"Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we DEFINE females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972)"
Seems that too many people are muddying the waters by making the issue into a matter of belief where it is more a matter of stipulative definitions designed to encapsulate and summarize brute biological facts. Chief among which are that those with functional ovaries, and those with functional testes can reproduce, and that those with neither can't.
"sex: 2) Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
Ah, the irony ... a piece on the inadequacy of language, perfectly expressed.
Thank you for this. I struggle with this, too, every time I try to express a gender-critical view on Twitter, or in comments to media pieces, or in letters to government officials.
When you've immersed yourself in this issue, you know even as you try to capture your thoughts what the automatic response is going to be to every word you use -- the accusations of hate, of wanting people not to exist, of wishing or calling for violence, of thinking "real women" are only those who can bear children. It feels Orwellian, as if there is a concerted intent to strip away my language so that I can't express -- or even think -- wrongthought.
Too true. I think that's why it's so important we find moments to articulate our thoughts and share them with each other. Suppression of speech is powerful because it keeps us from understanding and talking about what's happening to us and talking to each other.
That's why I think it's important to go slow with our responses and not get drawn into the mental gymnastics. When people start asking hypothetical questions like the judge in the example, we might be drawn away from our values. If say, a parent is not comfortable allowing their child to undergo cosmetic surgery, it could be important for them to clearly and repeatedly state "I am not comfortable allowing my child to live with the lifelong consequences of decisions they make in childhood. They are my responsibility until they are 18."
This seems to be a point that is often lost in all the linguistic muck -- when we say we're going to "support" children's life-altering decisions, are we not also saying that we are abdicating our responsibility as adults to keep them safe from other adults and themselves? Are we saying that we're fine with putting the responsibility on them to have all the perspective and maturity they need to handle the potential fallout of these decisions?
I wrote a post this morning (sending tomorrow) about exactly this... "when we say we're going to "support" children's life-altering decisions, are we not also saying that we are abdicating our responsibility as adults to keep them safe from other adults and themselves?"
Indeed, this is a huge problem. I am working on writing my testimony for a bill in the WA state legislature that would limit public records disclosures about biological males being locked up with women in our state prison. If I refer to the people being transferred to women's prisons as "men," (the radical feminist approach, and in complete accord with how I see reality) that will be deemed highly offensive. If I refer to these individuals as "trans women" then I am repeating something that doesn't fit my own perception of reality. I do not believe men can be women of any kind.
"Biological males" is the compromise term I chose, even though that is not going to gain me much trust with those who disagree with me either. At least I am making the point that I am talking about differences in biology amongst humans. The bigger, stronger ones with weaponizable body parts. I do not want to be inflammatory, and I truly want to communicate with the Senators, who for the most part support the bill which they probably truly believe is protecting "vulnerable trans people" by denying information about them to the public. I do not wish to cause pain to anyone. I want people's ears to stay open to the very real pain being caused to women who must live there, locked up with men, many who have histories of abuse and rape. But I can only compromise so much: I do not subscribe to the tenets of this gender ideology and believe it to be very harmful, especially when coded into law as is happening right now in my state and everywhere in the world. Language has been gagged and chained, which makes communication with anyone who has subscribed to these religious beliefs so challenging in this moment.
That's really brave what you're doing. Good for you. I empathize with the struggle around language and feeling like there's no good fit. More power to you.
Thank you! It's pretty terrifying but I know it is the right thing to do.
Seriously, best of luck to you. It's scary, worth doing, and your compromises on language seem limited and sound!
Thanks for the Like. 🙂
But entirely agree with your "the struggle around language" – pretty much a synopsis or thumbnail sketch of the whole issue. Many transactivists are apparently determined to corrupt the language by redefining terms like "woman" and "man" – and now even more fundamental and biologically-grounded terms like "male" and "female" – to comport with their dogma, with their envious delusions.
What's particularly sad if not galling is that so many ostensibly credible newspapers, like the UK Times, are pandering to those delusions, or are simply clueless or careless about their terminology. For instance, Canada's Toronto Sun had an article recently on Lia Thomas where they explicitly say:
"The polarizing University of Pennsylvania swimmer [Thomas] has broken several women’s records since transitioning from a male to a female."
https://torontosun.com/entertainment/celebrity/joe-rogan-calls-out-trans-swimmer-lia-thomas-during-podcast
Thomas has no more "transitioned from a male to a female" than I've "transitioned" to Donald Duck. I had posted a comment there objecting to their sloppy language but, maybe not surprisingly, they've deleted it. Rather disappointed in them and I expect I'll cancel my subscription to their paper – maybe throw it in Eliza's direction ... 😉
But as I've said over at GC News (worth a follow), the Daily Mail and the (UK) Times are equally guilty. Ditto the Guardian in their use of "trans woman" which is an egregious category error as it is asserting that human males can be human females. Which is flatly impossible, biologically speaking.
But see the link to my GC comment for the details, but something there from a Quillette article that bears repeating:
"Though different literary forms, the key message of both works [Orwell's 1984, & "Politics and the English Language] was the same: beware any person or group that redefines words so that they no longer align with facts, common sense, and common usage."
https://gcnews.substack.com/p/saturday-april-2-2022/comment/5860151?s=r
In any case, to change gears a bit, as a "therapist" you might like the following article at Cultural Anthropology by Sahar Sadjadi of the University of McGill, although you might find it more "frustrating" than not 🙂. But it's titled "Deep in the Brain: Identity and Authenticity in Pediatric Gender Transition", and this passage in particular gives something of the flavour or main elements in her argument:
"Moreover, the magico-spiritual undertone of the conversations I witnessed was striking .... As a physician and anthropologist of medicine, I had begun this project as a critical study of a cutting-edge clinical field; I was perplexed by this merging of science, magic, and religion in explaining children’s gender transition."
https://journal.culanth.org/index.php/ca/article/view/3728/430
Maybe some merit, even a bit of science in the concept of gender, at least as "the range of [objectively quantifiable] characteristics pertaining to femininity and masculinity and differentiating between them" as Wikipedia puts it. Rather less so in "gender identity" which looks more like a transmogrification of those characteristics – a "merging of science, magic, and religion", indeed.
Thanks for the journal link. I started to read it then got diverted by another article it mentioned that focuses on the history of the gender identity disorder (now, gender dysphoria) diagnosis. My many, competing interests sometimes leads to a shortened attention span.
To your point about the newspapers, I don't have much faith in them at the moment which is why it's nice to read well-written blogs like Eliza's. I also enjoy Deborah Cameron's blog "language: a feminist guide" for a linguist's take on all things gender and language.
"journal link"
De nada. Many different perspectives on "gender identity", and Sadjadi's seems one of the better ones. Though it wasn't clear from that article what she thought about the sex-gender dichotomy. Seems pretty much everyone has a different perspective on that dichotomy, or one of a smallish set of them which are largely contradictory, inconsistent, or incompatible. But that really isn't conducive to much progress.
"... shortened attention span"
I know the feeling. Difficult to remain focused when there are so many threads to follow, so many rabbit-holes too easy to get lost in.
"don't have much faith in them [newspapers]."
Nor I. But I don't think it's wise to abandon the field, to give free rein to the ideologues and peddlers of propaganda. Some necessity to try keeping them honest.
"Deborah Cameron's blog"
Thanks for the link; seems a pretty prolific writer:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_Cameron_(linguist)
Good luck with your project! I hope it changes some minds!
I got piled on by some people on Reddit (not difficult to do there ;-) ) when I used the phrase "natal men" instead of "AMAB"... the amount of hate directed at me for that simple yet clear language was insane.
Sorry to hear about the hate-filled pile-on. I wonder if the term "natal male" might arouse even marginally less pushback than "natal men"?
First, it's a better match: as "natal" describes condition at birth, whereas "men" refers to adulthood -- also the state that objectors most wish to deny.
"Natal male" might be harder to object to: as "male" describes sex and not gender -- so far as the terms "male" & "female" haven't been wholly captured & rendered meaningless (like "men" & "women").
Also, for as long as "AMAB / AFAB" are used by the trans lobby, this is tacit acceptance of the terms "male" and "female": leaving no logical grounds on which to object to the term "natal male" etc.
Of course logic is probably the last thing to resort to in trying to mention the unmentionable to people who basically want to get rid of the giveaway term "trans" altogether: to complete the gender change illusion (not so often a delusion).
PS the term I've recently come to value is "trans-identified male" (TIM). It acknowledges the trans claim & the ID claim, & supplies the natal sex from which "trans" derives meaning. All without mentioning women.
I think that "trans-identified male" would be even more strongly objected to by TRAs and some trans folks, because it says "You're really a male", the reality of which is one thing they object to as we all know. :-/
I don't think "natal male" would make a difference - anything that indicates that they were born male, and are still male despite their claimed identity gets pushback, I've found.
Thanks for the suggestions, tho'! I wish people on the TRA-and-"allies" side could have more sense in this regard, but we've found that's rare. :-(
"I do not believe men can be women of any kind."
I really don't think it's at all a question of belief, but of science and the logical consequences of our definitions. We ASSERT that, BY DEFINITION, "women" are "adult human females" and that "men" are "adult human males". And it is a scientific fact that humans simply can not be both males AND females:
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/woman
Consider an analogy in the definition and examples for "by definition":
"by definition idiom
: because of what something or someone is : according to the definition of a word that is being used to describe someone or something
A volunteer by definition is not paid.
A glider is by definition an aircraft with no engine."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/by%20definition
Do you "believe" that an aircraft without an engine is a glider? Or do we SAY such an aircraft IS a glider? What would you say to someone who insisted that an aircraft WITH an engine was a glider?
Similarly with "male" and "female", and with consequential terms "man" and "woman":
"Female gametes are larger than male gametes. This is not an empirical observation, but a definition: in a system with two markedly different gamete sizes, we DEFINE females to be the sex that produces the larger gametes and vice-versa for males (Parker et al. 1972)"
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-319-16999-6_3063-1
Seems that too many people are muddying the waters by making the issue into a matter of belief where it is more a matter of stipulative definitions designed to encapsulate and summarize brute biological facts. Chief among which are that those with functional ovaries, and those with functional testes can reproduce, and that those with neither can't.
"sex: 2) Either of the two main categories (male and female) into which humans and most other living things are divided on the basis of their reproductive functions."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/sex
Ah, the irony ... a piece on the inadequacy of language, perfectly expressed.
Thank you for this. I struggle with this, too, every time I try to express a gender-critical view on Twitter, or in comments to media pieces, or in letters to government officials.
When you've immersed yourself in this issue, you know even as you try to capture your thoughts what the automatic response is going to be to every word you use -- the accusations of hate, of wanting people not to exist, of wishing or calling for violence, of thinking "real women" are only those who can bear children. It feels Orwellian, as if there is a concerted intent to strip away my language so that I can't express -- or even think -- wrongthought.
Too true. I think that's why it's so important we find moments to articulate our thoughts and share them with each other. Suppression of speech is powerful because it keeps us from understanding and talking about what's happening to us and talking to each other.
That's why I think it's important to go slow with our responses and not get drawn into the mental gymnastics. When people start asking hypothetical questions like the judge in the example, we might be drawn away from our values. If say, a parent is not comfortable allowing their child to undergo cosmetic surgery, it could be important for them to clearly and repeatedly state "I am not comfortable allowing my child to live with the lifelong consequences of decisions they make in childhood. They are my responsibility until they are 18."
This seems to be a point that is often lost in all the linguistic muck -- when we say we're going to "support" children's life-altering decisions, are we not also saying that we are abdicating our responsibility as adults to keep them safe from other adults and themselves? Are we saying that we're fine with putting the responsibility on them to have all the perspective and maturity they need to handle the potential fallout of these decisions?
I wrote a post this morning (sending tomorrow) about exactly this... "when we say we're going to "support" children's life-altering decisions, are we not also saying that we are abdicating our responsibility as adults to keep them safe from other adults and themselves?"
Awesome! I'm looking forward to reading it!