DonkeySkin Fri 20-Jul-18 18:02:39

Inspired by a Glinner Twitter thread...



In which Graham Linehan stated that Stonewall advisor Alex Drummond was not female, and that anyone who believes otherwise is 'nuts'. He was inundated with people arguing this point, including some accusing him of 'defining women by gender stereotypes'. Someone else tweeted separately in another thread (paraphrasing), 'I had no idea this many people were this crazy.'



But the thing is... they're not crazy, are they? All the people who espouse the ideology of 'gender identity', which that holds that male and female are a feeling-state, rather than a physical fact.



GC feminists often describe such people as 'delusional', but this is ascribing a level of good faith to them that is undeserved. People who are willing to state outright that a male person can be female if he says so aren't delusional. THEY ARE LIARS. They are lying when they say that sex is a social construct, and no one can tell the difference between male and female human beings, and they need to be called on this lie, not indulged with esoteric arguments about linguistics, metaphysics and (inevitably) intersex conditions.



Every single person on that thread arguing with Linehan knows as well as he does that Alex Drummond isn't female. So even arguing the point with them is attributing a weird legitimacy to this lie, by assuming that the people repeating it are making a good-faith argument.



Let me reiterate: nobody actually believes this. Every politician and high-profile person who smugly intones: 'Trans women are women' is perfectly aware that male human beings aren't female human beings. No one is truly confused about the difference between the class of persons who have the potential to impregnate, and the class of persons who have the potential to get pregnant. Nobody has lost their ability to tell the two sexes apart, and there is no way anyone can cognitively trick themselves into perceiving an obviously male-looking person as a woman.



So the disagreement about whether 'trans women are women' isn't a real disagreement. It's a cover for a different argument altogether.



This isn't a dispute between people who believe that male human beings are really female if they say so, and people who don't believe it. Because NOBODY believes that. What we are actually arguing about is whether female human beings should be permitted to define ourselves separately from males.



When people say 'trans women are women', they are not expressing a sincere belief that adult human males can become adult human females. They are asserting men's right to claim membership of the same ontological category as women, on their terms whenever they so wish. Conversely, and just as importantly, they are also denying the right of human females to have a separate ontological category to ourselves.



Feminists should not be reduced to arguing that women and girls exist as a real material thing in the world. Everyone already knows this. We need to stop arguing about whether 'trans women are women' and move the argument onto its true ground, by putting the case that women have the right to define ourselves – in language and in law – separately from males. Female human beings have the right to an ontological category to ourselves, a name to ourselves and the language to define our physical and social reality. And let the trans ideologues and their 'feminist' supporters argue the opposite, in all its stark brazen misogyny, if they wish.