“ Nail Polish Does Not a Woman Make “

This week, Germaine Greer, a woman who has spent the last fifty years fighting for women’s rights, has been barred from speaking at Cardiff University in Wales by a women’s group. Why has a campus feminist organization petitioned for her silence? She has an unpopular opinion regarding trans women.

Before we begin our unpacking of this loaded issue, here’s a brief biography of Ms. Greer. For if you’re anything like me, dimwitted, unread man that I am, this is the first you’ve heard of Germaine Greer.

Born in 1939, Greer is considered one of the leading voices of the second wave of feminism, most famously known for her book The Female Eunuch (1970.) Feminist, scholar, writer, teacher, poet, and activist, Ms. Greer has made many enemies with her iconoclasm. This is not her first run in with other feminists. Her troubles began with women’s groups back in 1999 after her publication of The Whole Woman, in which she distanced herself from “equality feminists” by defining herself as a liberation feminist. Women’s liberation, she says, is embracing sex differences positively – struggling for women’s freedom to “define their own values, order their own priorities and decide their own fate.” In 1973 she debated the caricature of pretension, William F. Buckley. And she wiped the floor with him. Of their encounter Buckley said, “Nothing I said, and memory reproaches me for having performed miserably, made any impression or any dent in the argument. She carried the house overwhelmingly.”

So what happened this time? What exactly did this warrior for women say to suddenly lose them all?

Before reading any further, I implore you to watch the full interview here.

It is imperative that we pay attention to the entire conversation, not just sound bites, as much as our ADD and anxious thumbs fight it. The hyperbole in the the headlines have read, “Germaine Greer ATTACKS the transgender community,” “Germaine Greer is a Hateful Bigot,” or “Germaine Greer Slams Caitlyn Jenner.” In watching the interview in full, can we honestly use language like “attacks,” “hateful,” or “slams?” I was surprised after reading these articles about this horrible woman vehemently lashing out against the LGBT community, to finally watch the full BBC interview and hear sensible, nuanced points on a complicated and brand-spanking-new issue facing our culture. The reality is that she was being pressed by the BBC journalist on an issue that she insisted she didn’t care about. “I don’t care!” she exclaimed at one point, ” [It] happens to be an opinion. It’s not a prohibition, carry on if that’s what you think it is you want to do. I’ve been accused of inciting violence against transgender people. It’s absolute nonsense.”

The petition, started by Cardiff University Students’ Union Women’s Officer, Rachael Melhuish, claims that Greer “[has] demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually ‘misgendering’ trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether.”

I suppose my issue here, in the rhetoric being used in the discussion of Greer’s opinion is the amount of intent placed on the woman herself. Slams. Attacks. She said, “I was going to talk about women and power, and the lessons of the twentieth century … Apparently people have decided that because I don’t think that post-operative transgender men are women, I’m not to be allowed to talk.” She had no intention of speaking on trans issues. In January, in an interview, she said that trans women didn’t know what it was like to have a vagina. That’s it, that’s what happened. It is a fact. It is -in fact – something they don’t know. But, currently, we live in a climate in which someone stating a fact can get them socially crucified.

Please let it be noted that the author is, in appropriately millennial fashion, quite comfortable recognizing trans individuals as whatever sex or gender they prefer to be recognized. I could not say the same for my grandparents (God rest most of their souls) however. Ms. Greer is seventy six years-old. Can anyone else, who has parents or grandparents in their seventies or eighties say the same for them? It seems to me that, for a 76 year-old woman, Germaine Greer is rather evolved on the issue.

The interview took its most interesting turn when Greer was asked what she thought of Jenner being named Glamour Magazine’s Woman of the Year. “I think misogyny plays a really big part in all of this, that a man who goes to these lengths to become a woman will be a better woman than someone who is just born a woman.”

And here the liberal community becomes ouroboros.

What does this mean? Is it misogyny? Is it a hatred of women? I wouldn’t go so far as to call it misogyny, but I can certainly see where a woman can feel uncomfortable, pressed into a social-justice corner, expected to recognize Caitlyn’s womanhood.

Do you know who this is?

This is Lana Wachowski. And while it is not appropriate in most liberal circles to do this, I’m going to tell you that Lana was once a man. Ms. Wachowski is a filmmaker. She is one half of the brilliant minds that brought us The Matrix as well as many other Blockbusters like V for Vendetta and Cloud Atlas. Like Caitlyn, Lana was already an accomplished and talented man before she made her transition. And now, like Caitlyn, she is an accomplished and talented woman. But unlike Caitlyn, we have never seen her in a corset. (I realize I’m now walking in a social justice minefield. At any moment titles can be put upon me, like slut-shamer or misogynist or transphobic. And the more I thrash and swing, pleading that I am not, That I wish peace and respect, equality and autonomy to all peoples, the thicker and more apparent the titles will become. But please, bear with me.)

I remember the day the Vanity Fair cover hit and America obliged itself to declare Caitlyn Jenner as nothing but ‘stunning and brave.’ I remember my girlfriend struggling with what to think and what to say. “I respect … I celebrate Caitlyn Jenner. I do. But.” Struggling to articulate what she was feeling, she began googling other Vanity Fair covers. Beautiful women, in underwear and bathing suits, dark running eye liner and pouty, begging lips flooded her laptop. “Vanity Fair hates women.” She finally declared.

“Vanity Fair hates women?” I repeated with a question mark.

“I celebrate Caitlyn Jenner. I do.” She paused.

“Vanity Fair is bad for women.” She decided.

Why is no one demanding that we celebrate Lana Wachowski? Where is Lana’s hero award? Where is the social pressure to declare her stunning and brave?

In a Fresh Air interview, while promoting her latest book The Secret History of Wonder Woman, Jill Lepore was pressed on the “Lena Dunham” brand of sex-positive feminism, Lepore sighed and said it was ‘fine’ but that she’s uncomfortable with the public’s eagerness to so fully accept this one particular aspect of feminism, the embracing of the woman as a sexual being, and yet still struggling with the many other facets.

It would seem that when being introduced to the empowerment of a disenfranchised group , as with feminism, it sure helps us out if they’re sexy.

Shortly after Vanity Fair’s hot and sexy reveal, another feminist was tarred and feathered for her scruples. In a New York Times Op-Ed piece, entitled What Makes a Woman, Elinor Burkett wrote the following:

“But as the movement becomes mainstream, it’s growing harder to avoid asking pointed questions about the frequent attacks by some trans leaders on women’s right to define ourselves, our discourse and our bodies. After all, the trans movement isn’t simply echoing African-Americans, Chicanos, gays or women by demanding an end to the violence and discrimination, and to be treated with a full measure of respect. It’s demanding that women reconceptualize ourselves. … Bruce Jenner told Ms. Sawyer that what he looked forward to most in his transition was the chance to wear nail polish, not for a furtive, fugitive instant, but until it chips off. I want that for Bruce, now Caitlyn, too. But I also want her to remember: Nail polish does not a woman make.”

Greer would also go on to say in her BBC interview that Jenner “wanted the limelight that the other, female members of the family were enjoying and has conquered it.” she snaps her fingers, “Just like that.”

Is this overtly true? Did Caitlyn Jenner set out steal the limelight from her step daughters? Most likely not. It is a fact that she had begun hormone therapy in the 80’s, the transition did begin long ago. This comment has received a great deal of eye rolls and thumb biting. But is there a broader conversation to be had?

Why do we love the Kardashians so much? What brought these women their wealth and fame? They’re not great thinkers or athletes. They have no talents, musical or otherwise. One of the sisters made a sex tape, they live in LA luxury. That’s it. In a decade, they helped make plastic, cosmetic surgery a cultural norm, something to be celebrated and cataloged on social media platforms. Spending endless hours fixating on physical faults, attempting to ‘fix’ them through makeup became a luxury, something young women should strive for. The life of the rich and famous. And believe it or not, there was a time when feminists disapproved of these women as role models for children.

If you lived among them, if they were your community, your village, it would not take long to see how one attains value and status. Be a pretty, sexy girl. So what happened? Bruce became a pretty, sexy girl and suddenly the cameras are now pointing directly at her. Now a show will release following her and only her. She’ll wear more makeup and more corsets, pose for more photographers and magazines. (Word is Playboy wants a photoshoot with her.) One day, she too, will break the internet. And more girls – and now boys – will see how to attain value and status. “Just like that.”