Read on Twitter
The thread below encapsulates all that infuriates me about a certain brand of trans activist self-serving opinion about us
Let’s start with the punchline:
“if those with a certain body can not be women, then those with a different body can be women”
1 https://twitter.com/RadFemme74/status/1303079347377647625?s=20
Let’s start with the punchline:
“if those with a certain body can not be women, then those with a different body can be women”
1 https://twitter.com/RadFemme74/status/1303079347377647625?s=20
(the ‘different body’ is, of course, a male body)
The "then those..." doesn’t even follow (in the if A then B sense) but it doesn’t matter because this stuff is never about logic anyway.
Still, what’s the ‘argument’ which apparently justifies this?
2
The "then those..." doesn’t even follow (in the if A then B sense) but it doesn’t matter because this stuff is never about logic anyway.
Still, what’s the ‘argument’ which apparently justifies this?
2
The flimsey foundation on which everything is built is an egregious re-write of a key insight in the women's liberation movement. It’s rendered:
“woman is something the patriarchy imposes on certain bodies”
If this were not about the interests of males, this might mean:
3
“woman is something the patriarchy imposes on certain bodies”
If this were not about the interests of males, this might mean:
3
“Women are expected to have, want and maintain bodies within a range acceptable to the male gaze – so we’d best not be too fat, tall, short, ‘ugly’, old or just generally not sexually appealing. Conformity to these standards is the price of being considered a (real) woman”
4
4
This has always been vital to push back against: it’s part of exposing the difference between what is true - e.g. being born female - and what is thought 'natural' - e.g. women are only suited to sex, motherhood and being fragile, emotional creatures unsuited to public life.
5
5
And it’s true that gatekeeping 'women' from many female adults who wouldn't conform to norms of femininity (or any of the other contingent expectations imposed on what women ought to do) is routine. Exposing this – how it happens, what impact this has – was de Beauvoir’s
6
6
and so many other's gift to us, and it is now familiar to think of a distinction between contingent gender expectations and being female. It’s this that "one is not born but becomes a woman" captures.
Women throughout the world still need liberation from these constraints.
7
Women throughout the world still need liberation from these constraints.
7
But this won't do for males who want to opt in to ‘woman’, so the argument must be completely warped and the "natural differentiations" de Beauvoir and every other sane person knows exist must be ignored.
Thus we get this
“some people will say "you can't choose who you are"”
8
Thus we get this
“some people will say "you can't choose who you are"”
8
There is a difference between claiming ‘who’ you are, and ‘what’ you are. Children have to learn this
You CAN’T choose not to be human or which sex you are.
You CAN choose what living your life as that sex will mean to you, and make choices within those constraints
9
Pleska's trump card is supposed to be that I'm therefore guilty of:
"[saying] you have this anatomy, this is who you are, and you can not object […]. Which is [...] flimsy and circular, declaring women's bodies come ahead of women's minds and selves.”
10
"[saying] you have this anatomy, this is who you are, and you can not object […]. Which is [...] flimsy and circular, declaring women's bodies come ahead of women's minds and selves.”
10
No. Its flimsy and circular to act as if ‘women’s minds and selves’ exist as independent and free-floating – regardless of growing up in a female body.
They can’t.
And people like Pleska are never going to make enough people believe, or pretend to believe, that they can.
11
They can’t.
And people like Pleska are never going to make enough people believe, or pretend to believe, that they can.
11
So then why not leave the Pleska's to their delusion?
Because to make any progress we have to appreciate the critical importance of biology and anatomy in women’s oppression for we face the world as it is, not as people like Pleska fantasises it could be to serve them.
12
Because to make any progress we have to appreciate the critical importance of biology and anatomy in women’s oppression for we face the world as it is, not as people like Pleska fantasises it could be to serve them.
12
Patriarchy is not responding to ideas about “mind and self” - the rapists, sex slavers, murderers and abusers, groomers, pimps and pornographers understand us in terms of which sex we are with the bodies we have. Its fundamental to how we exist in this world alongside men,
13
13
and any defensible form of feminist thought and practice cannot simply brush this aside because it hurts some people’s feelings.
This is starkly captured by Andrea Dworkin – hardly known for biological essentialism in her thought!
14
This is starkly captured by Andrea Dworkin – hardly known for biological essentialism in her thought!
14
What we are – growing up in the world, as female – IS tethered to our biology. Changing language so ‘woman’ can no longer capture this erases the word we use to denote our sex class, which in turn obscures our condition and threatens our liberation from male domination.
15
15
So the Pleskas are not only wrong, their thoughts are a danger to us.
Allowing men to tell us what we are – in this case, that we should “just think [about the category woman] differently” won’t work out well for women.
Actual women, that is.
Allowing men to tell us what we are – in this case, that we should “just think [about the category woman] differently” won’t work out well for women.
Actual women, that is.
