The original version of this article can be found here on karadansky.com. It has been reposted here with permission from the author.
The following happened on my Twitter feed this morning.
Rosa’s tweet carries a great message that is worth exploring in more detail than can be captured in 280 characters. All credit for the original tweet goes to Rosa, who knows that I am blogging about this, but who bears no responsibility whatsoever for my bad writing or my terrible ideas.
Do you want to defeat gender ideology?
Most readers of this blog will answer this question with a definitive YES, immediately, yesterday, please. We must defeat this ideology that denies the reality of biological sex, and the industry that drives it. We have to be clear, in addition, that we are not interested in targeting any individuals who embrace the ideology. Chase Strangio, of ACLU notoriety, once accused me on Twitter of having what Chase referred to as a “violent vision of trans death” (you can read all about that here). I have, of course, in fact never had a “violent vision” of anyone’s death. It is important that we keep reiterating that the enemy is the ideology and the industry that drives it, not the individual people who subscribe to it.
Ask questions.
Asking questions when having conversations like this is critical. When people are really challenged to think deeply about what they mean, clarity tends to emerge. For example, I was once talking with a friend, and the following conversation ensued:
Her: Why are you so focused on the transgender issue?
Me: I’d like to back up and ask you what you mean by “transgender.”
Her: [pauses]
Her: I guess I mean people who are transgender?
Me: Okay, but what category of people do you have in mind when you use that word?
Her: Huh. I guess I don’t actually know.
Me: Okay, fair enough. Then let me ask you this … I know that you are an extremely intelligent person. Do you often use words that you don’t know the meaning of?
Her: No, I don’t.
Me: I didn’t think so. So why are you doing it here?
Her: [laughs nervously] I guess I don’t know why I am doing that.
My friend was being very honest here. She knows and trusts me, and she allowed me to take her down this path. I didn’t push it further. Getting her to see that (a) she doesn’t know what “transgender” means, and (b) for some reason that she could not identify, she was using it even though she does not know what it means, made her at least question herself. There is something deeply suspicious about a movement that persuades extremely intelligent people to use words that have no obvious meaning. My friend is smart enough to see through that.
Another example. I was invited to meet with a group of Republican women, and the following exchange occurred between me and one of the women in the group:
Her: What are we going to do about the problem of transgender athletes in women’s sports?
Me: I have some ideas regarding advocacy on that topic but let me just back up and ask you exactly what you mean by “transgender.” I’m not asking you what you understand the official definition to be; I’m asking what you, yourself, have in mind by your use of that word.
Her: [pauses]
Her: Well, I guess I thought that I had to use that word.
Me: Do you mean men and boys?
Her: Yes.
Me: Okay, you can just say “men and boys.”
Her: I didn’t think that we are allowed to say that.
Me: If you mean men and boys, it’s perfectly fine to say so.
At that point, the entire room breathed a collective sigh of relief.
Allow me to deviate from the central point of this piece to reflect on that for a moment. Most of us know that it is largely the Democratic party in the U.S. that is driving this movement politically and in the courts. We have all probably grown fully accustomed to our Democratic colleagues, friends, and family members shouting “TWAW” from the rooftops and adding pronouns to their email signatures. But this was a Republican gathering. When even Republican women can be made to feel that the use of language that they fundamentally disagree with is mandatory, you know that we are in trouble.
Getting back to the topic at hand, having these conversations takes patience, especially for those of us who have been in this fight for a long time. We’re tired. But it’s worth it because when we ask questions, we challenge people to see through the fog, and very often, they do.
Be relentless. Polite but relentless.
This one is critical, and tricky, even when communicating with women and allies within our own movement.
I was once giving a TV interview on the topic of women’s sports with a relatively friendly interviewer. During the introduction he said something about a “woman who used to be man” (if memory serves, he was talking about McKinnon). He asked me his first question, but before answering, I had to clarify that there is no such thing as a “woman who used to be a man.” He accepted my correction gracefully. Afterwards, a friend commented (favorably) that I was relentless.
I know that a lot of feminists and allies say things like “transwomen are men.” I understand the purpose of this, and the point that the phrase is making. However, I do not agree with that strategy. I really think that we must be relentless in our insistence on using accurate terminology, because once we compromise on language, at all, we have conceded too much.
This point is made vividly in the piece, “The Gender Cult is Winning the War on Language:”
A misnomer is a powerful thing, and the gender cult knows this. Men who pretend to be women have chosen the term “trans woman” very carefully—not “transsexual,” not “trans-woman,” not “transwoman.” They insist upon “trans woman.” The space is important to them, because it sets up “trans” and “woman” as two separate words. Noun: woman. Adjective: trans. This allows them to claim that “trans women” are fundamentally women—that “trans women” are a type of women, more similar to than different from other types of women; the adjective is trivial, just a detail. This simple linguistic sleight of hand entitles men to everything women once had. If “woman” is accepted as the correct noun—and the dictionary now accepts it as such—then every legal case, political policy, or academic study that attempts to separate these men from women is doomed to fail. Nouns matter. In losing the noun “woman,” we have already lost everything.
I know that debates rage about whether it is appropriate to use language that “meets people where they are” when talking with friends who do not really understand what is going on. I understand the argument that use of words like “trans woman” is necessary because most people in society today think in these terms. I also understand the opposing argument, made in the quote above.
Where I come down on this question is this: I will not use words like “transgender” or “trans woman” because I honestly just have no idea what they mean. I promise that this is not due to ignorance or a failure on my part to do my research. I have been in this fight for years. And after all these years, I just don’t know what people are on about when they use terms like this.
The point made in the piece above is a very important one: if we cede on language, we cede everything. But perhaps an equally good reason not to cede on language is that the language being used just does not make any sense.
Which brings me to …
Gender ideology makes no sense. Let them tie themselves in knots to try to make sense out of it.
Every single time.
But there is a frustrating glitch here, which is that these conversations rarely make it out of our social media bubbles. When feminists and allies engage in social media arguments with our opponents, we can see clearly that they do indeed tie themselves in knots and are constantly moving the goal posts. This is obvious to us.
The problem is that it is not yet obvious to the broader public. Many people still think that this is a civil rights movement to protect a marginalized population. That fact is extremely frustrating for those of us who saw through the absurdity years ago. But this is not an accident. It’s deliberate, and it’s what prompted me to say this, a few weeks ago:
Yes, their arguments make no sense, and they fall, withering from the vine, at the tiniest bit of scrutiny. Which is exactly why the media does not publish feminist or gay rights arguments against them.
Here is a list that I have started compiling to target media outlets on Twitter:
@MSNBC @maddow @NBCNews @NBCNightlyNews @ABC @CBSNews @AP @thedailybeast @billmaher @TheDailyShow @washingtonpost @nytimes @Nightline @CNN
Feel free to use it at any time. Add to it if you’d like. Make it your own.
Make them hear us.
And finally …
And remember, have fun with it.
I wouldn’t have it any other way. ⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️⚔️
This article was written by Kara Danksy. You can find the original version on karadansky.com.
