Skip to main content

Erasing Women To Be Inclusive

I began a Dictionary for the Modern Age. It was an attempt to record the absurdity of social justice discourse and its remove from material reality. It started as an amusement but I grew quickly unable to inure myself to how dumb, to be frank, the discourse is. If the point of language is to trade in reality and meaning, the point of social justice discourse is the exact opposite. It exists to obscure reality and remove meaning to substitute the desires of elites for the needs of vulnerable people. It has no defined concepts or fixed definitions. This is especially apparent with what is called trans rights activism.  It's entirely discursive, but you're not allowed to ask questions about it.

It starts by premising that there is some right lost to people upon declaring themselves the opposite sex that must be reattained. False premises are always the basis of this ideology spread through logic defying assertions of faith like, transwomen are women. There is no right lost, the goal is to establish the external validation of one's preferred self image as a special dispensation for trans people. Since the ideology is predicated on false assumptions we should assume that it is dishonest about its purported goals.

One could be forgiven for assuming that "trans rights" are more about stripping women of legal protections than ensuring the safety of trans people. It starts by attempting to render "woman" completely meaningless. The dictionary defines woman as adult human female. This definition has been repeatedly removed from billboards across the globe as transphobic. The definition of woman is considered hateful because it doesn't include transwomen. It doesn't include transwomen because it doesn't include males, since that is how language works. Words are not meant to be all inclusive. What does someone born male and someone born female have in common that the word woman can refer to both? If the word woman includes both males and females, what does the word mean? 

Increasingly, the people who were once unquestionably women are now referred to in relation to body parts and bodily functions: people who menstruate, bleeders, people with a cervix, chest-feeders, pregnant people. These biological functions are reduced to possessions from characteristics to make "woman" more inclusive for people for whom none of those characteristics apply. The consequence is that this meaning defying use of language ends up excluding women. When medical associations adopt this ideology they risk causing harm to women. For example, the UK cancer charity, Macmillan Cancer Support faced strong backlash for referring to cervical cancer in people with a cervix because nearly half of women are unaware of their cervix by name. Their site made it clear that it is men who are at risk of prostate cancer. 

At the same time, behaviors which, while not exclusive, are far more characteristic of men, like rape and sexual assault, are attributed to women. When trans identified men are arrested for rape or sexual predation they are progressively recorded as crimes by women.

Orwelian is an overused adjective but there is no better description for the arguments behind trans ideology:

  • war is peace
  • freedom is slavery
  • ignorance is strength
  • transwomen are women (even if she rapes women with her female penis)
  • misgendering is harm
  • it takes cosmetic surgery and a lifetime of hormones to be your authentic self
As in 1984, people are forced to believe these clear falsehoods under penalty of unemployment, social and academic censure, or contact from the authorities. By believe, here I mean repeat the false statement like a consciousness destroying mantra until it is difficult to distinguish between fact and fiction.

The trans rights movement is deeply dishonest and uses language to obscure its actual goals. The way that words are used do not match any definition of the words. This is especially true for the word at the heart of the ideology: gender. There is no point in asking for a definition of gender or gender identity from any advocate of trans ideology. The lack of a definition has no impact on their advocacy. Instead, we should begin offering the word that matches the way gender and other words are used by activists. Put another way, we should start using synonyms for "gender". Although I'm unable to think of any word, I have a few phrases. Wish fulfillment or preferred self image for gender and sex soul for gender identity. I'm certain there are many more.

Laws are being interpreted and changed to include males who self-identify as trans in women's prisons, women's hospital wards, women's sports, and women's changing rooms. In a place like California where it's now illegal to segregate by sex would it be legal to segregate by sexual organ? Would it be possible to use the trans framework for spaces? "This changing room is for people with a penis of any gender. All testicles are welcome." Perhaps it's time to start using the inclusive language for men as well:
  • people with a penis
  • people who produce sperm
  • people with a prostate
  • people most likely to commit sexual assault
  • people with testicles
  • people who don't gestate babies
  • people most likely to experience male pattern baldness
  • people who ejaculate
Feel free to add to the list.


Popular posts from this blog

'Anti-racism', All Trap, No Honey: A Discourse About Discourse

One of the things that prevents me from writing more often is the sense that I'm just writing the same thing repeatedly from a slightly different angle. In a nutshell, all I'm saying is that moral idealism substituted for material goals will not lead to justice, but is an argument against materialism. I'm a dumb person's low rent Adolph Reed Jr. translator. I'm a "class reductionist" who understands that when the discourse is reduced to just class there's nothing as important as food, water and shelter that's left out. I often find myself contending with people who insist that there is, unable to name anything. They don't understand that they're making an argument against economic redistribution, or they don't care. There are no concrete manifestations of systemic racism or any oppression that are not dealt with through economic redistribution. When people say that economic redistribution won't end racism, what they mean is that


Meet the F--kers F--kers-9-7.wmv Iraq war delayed katrina relief effort, inquiry finds TIMELINES pt. 2 -the president's timeline -gov. blanco declares a state of emergency Friday, August 26, 2005 -gov. blanco asks the president to decl a re a federal state of emergency Saturday morning, August 27 , 2005 -the president declares a state of emergency Saturday, August 27, 2005

Wokeness: The Ugly Changeling Baby and the End of Shared Reality

I have once again found it difficult to write because I'm just saying the same thing in different ways about the moral idealism in the social justice discourse. For months, I've been reflecting on this moment and the future implications. It's seems increasingly likely that we are reaching towards a point in which there's no shared objective knowledge Instead, we'll just have popular consensus and disinformation, depending on your ideological commitments.  I want to lay this out so that it doesn't just seem like a bunch of completely disconnected impressions, but the logical conclusion of tying those impressions together. I think some of it may already be clear to anyone who sees the obvious parallels between the riot in the Capitol and Russiagate, understanding that only the latter had actual power behind it. But I want to make it clear for those who don't. In August 2020, American Greatness published a piece from journalist Oliver Bateman called " The