I'm really struck by one of your points at the beginning. You'll hear these people tell about how they were oppressed by gender and sought to escape the binary or whatever, but this seems to occur at a time where theres the least amount of pressure to conform. It's bizarre to hear people talk about gender and gender roles like we're in Saudi Arabia
Thank you so much for the clear arguments and righteous indignation in this article! I HATE the dehumanizing language some elements of the trans movement are trying to force on women. I am so proud to have given birth twice and breastfed both my kids. The strength, sacrifice, and nurturing love in those acts were an expression of my womanhood, and lying, dismissive terms like “birthing parent” and “chest feeding” degrade that. I’m sorry. They just do.
Also, I loved this line, which really gets at the heart of the matter: “When calling yourself a man results in a death, perhaps it’s time to reconsider whether changing the meaning of an entire set of medically relevant words, as commonly understood for millennia, is a beneficial idea.” Ba BAM!
"[O]ur confusion of sex and gender, the repurposing of sex-based words for gender-based meanings, is preventing us from having those important conversations in any meaningful way."
By now, cynical as it may be, I genuinely believe that's a primary point and intended effect.
Your final point about nonbinary is so true. At my university, tons of folks have she/they or he/they in their email signature, and it's just like ... yes, I too am not a walking caricature of "femininity" but I feel no need to broadcast it like this.
The reality goes a bit beyond the sex/gender split described in thie essay; although we have a rather high degree of behavioral flexibility, our behavior is actually influenced by our sex.
We're sexually dimorphic primates. The size difference matters with respect to behavior, and it's not just the size difference, it's the hormones as well. This is why the vast and overwhelming majority of humans in prison for violent crime are men. Men are better equipped both physically and psychologically for aggressive competition. This does not mean all men are aggressive, nor that no women are capable of aggression. And yet, at large scale, the pattern persists. Human males are not as aggressive as gorillas, but we're not the hippies that bonobo chimpanzees are. By the way, male gorillas are about twice the size of females, humans males are about 15-20% larger, and bonobos are equal in size. The size differential matters, as do the bio-chemical and neurological differences.
While we're on the subject, human females come pre-adapted for dealing with the needs of infants; that has emotional and psychological as well as physical implications. This is not terribly surprising from an evolutionary perspective (although I'm sure it's absolute heresy in gender studies departments).
These are not the only sex-related behavioral differences, but they're among the most salient. Again, humans have substantial behavioral flexibility, and there is significant variation in human behavior with respect to sex. Nonetheless, gendered behavior is not entirely detached from sex. Here's a radical concept: people bring their essential natures to the project of constructing culture. Culture is not constructed in a biological vacuum.
The mere fact that trans people take cross-sex hormones puts the lie to this whole social construction fantasy. The hormones produce both physical AND psychological effects. And, surprise, surprise, when you're your born into a sex and experience the whole shebang right through puberty, you're a very different creature than some johnny-come-lately who's had some injections and plastic surgeries.
Here's the thing: you can put a shoe in an oven, but that doesn't make it a biscuit. Now, it's a free country, believe whatever rubbish you please. Expecting people to join you in your delusions is just ridiculous. Bullying them over it is monstrous.
It's incredible how quickly the "trans" discussion has become a major part of every cultural institution.
I suspect this isn't really about the very small percentage of the population that might truly experience some kind of gender dysphoria. As you, I hope they can find happiness in life. But the attention is disproportionate to any real cultural impact. Why? Because it's not really about "trans" at all. It 's about conditioning people to reject reality in favor of the pronouncements of those in charge. It's the real world equivalent of Winston finally agreeing that 2 + 2 = 5. And thus Winston came to love Big Brother.
Thank you for writing this. I stumbled upon this via link from another stack and am so glad I clicked on it - wow. It articulated so well something that I have been trying to put into words for myself and in conversation with others and with my daughters, with only moderate success. This is such important stuff. You treat it with kindness but also keep it grounded in principle and reality and I appreciate that delicate tight rope you walked. Saving this Substack -- only a few reads get this distinction. Just subscribed too! ❤️
That said, I have to concede your point in your last section about attributing examples of real-life confusion to these ever-shifting definitions. I can claim to be above that kind of simplistic thinking all I want, but I can't deny that it is having material impact. The most optimistic take I can offer is that I don't believe this is a stable equilibrium that can last forever. I note for example, how quickly the term "biological woman" came to be used, including by judges in court opinions. If you dull a word enough, people will (eventually) look for a sharper implement.
I should point out that way back when there was no formal distinction between sex and gender. Gender was more skewed towards non-biological realities. For example, your French teacher would ask you the gender of the noun Maison, but conversely, people talked about sex roles, interchangeably with gender roles. it’s only later that people opportunistically began to drive a wedge between the two.
Meaning that our non-recognition of gender as a separate thing is perhaps even more deeply founded than you suggest.
This doesn't at all contradict the main point you're making, but the use of "father" is a bit less constant across cultures than it might seem - some traditional cultures in South America believe in partible paternity, an idea that every man who has had sex with a woman while she is pregnant shares in the fatherhood of the child. Biologically, of course, this is not correct. I believe the theory among anthropologists is that partible paternity has prosocial effects - see e.g. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1002598107 for academic work on the matter. It seems like all the traditional societies mentioned would agree with you on the use of "man" and "woman" though.
Great essay, yes non-binary is just the frame we most of us occupy on moment to moment experience. The sense of self occurs in a space much bigger -than our sex and gendered experience. Perhaps where we've failed young people is not helping them understand that first-person phenomenological experience can be quite strange, and becoming an adult engaging in the world can take some getting used to. Anxiety, for example, could be thought of as a kind of existential dysphoria, not something we would just jump to surgery on, though of course it's heavily medicalised.
I'm really struck by one of your points at the beginning. You'll hear these people tell about how they were oppressed by gender and sought to escape the binary or whatever, but this seems to occur at a time where theres the least amount of pressure to conform. It's bizarre to hear people talk about gender and gender roles like we're in Saudi Arabia
Thank you so much for the clear arguments and righteous indignation in this article! I HATE the dehumanizing language some elements of the trans movement are trying to force on women. I am so proud to have given birth twice and breastfed both my kids. The strength, sacrifice, and nurturing love in those acts were an expression of my womanhood, and lying, dismissive terms like “birthing parent” and “chest feeding” degrade that. I’m sorry. They just do.
Also, I loved this line, which really gets at the heart of the matter: “When calling yourself a man results in a death, perhaps it’s time to reconsider whether changing the meaning of an entire set of medically relevant words, as commonly understood for millennia, is a beneficial idea.” Ba BAM!
"[O]ur confusion of sex and gender, the repurposing of sex-based words for gender-based meanings, is preventing us from having those important conversations in any meaningful way."
By now, cynical as it may be, I genuinely believe that's a primary point and intended effect.
Your final point about nonbinary is so true. At my university, tons of folks have she/they or he/they in their email signature, and it's just like ... yes, I too am not a walking caricature of "femininity" but I feel no need to broadcast it like this.
The reality goes a bit beyond the sex/gender split described in thie essay; although we have a rather high degree of behavioral flexibility, our behavior is actually influenced by our sex.
We're sexually dimorphic primates. The size difference matters with respect to behavior, and it's not just the size difference, it's the hormones as well. This is why the vast and overwhelming majority of humans in prison for violent crime are men. Men are better equipped both physically and psychologically for aggressive competition. This does not mean all men are aggressive, nor that no women are capable of aggression. And yet, at large scale, the pattern persists. Human males are not as aggressive as gorillas, but we're not the hippies that bonobo chimpanzees are. By the way, male gorillas are about twice the size of females, humans males are about 15-20% larger, and bonobos are equal in size. The size differential matters, as do the bio-chemical and neurological differences.
While we're on the subject, human females come pre-adapted for dealing with the needs of infants; that has emotional and psychological as well as physical implications. This is not terribly surprising from an evolutionary perspective (although I'm sure it's absolute heresy in gender studies departments).
These are not the only sex-related behavioral differences, but they're among the most salient. Again, humans have substantial behavioral flexibility, and there is significant variation in human behavior with respect to sex. Nonetheless, gendered behavior is not entirely detached from sex. Here's a radical concept: people bring their essential natures to the project of constructing culture. Culture is not constructed in a biological vacuum.
The mere fact that trans people take cross-sex hormones puts the lie to this whole social construction fantasy. The hormones produce both physical AND psychological effects. And, surprise, surprise, when you're your born into a sex and experience the whole shebang right through puberty, you're a very different creature than some johnny-come-lately who's had some injections and plastic surgeries.
Here's the thing: you can put a shoe in an oven, but that doesn't make it a biscuit. Now, it's a free country, believe whatever rubbish you please. Expecting people to join you in your delusions is just ridiculous. Bullying them over it is monstrous.
This week, on Criminal Minds:
“All right, what are we looking at this time?”
“Bodies, sir. Bodies… with vaginas.”
re drawing the map does not change the land.
Best article on this topic. Thank you.
Dehumanising and bullying. Bullies are people who for a reason feel inferior and latch onto coercion to gain power rapidly.
It's incredible how quickly the "trans" discussion has become a major part of every cultural institution.
I suspect this isn't really about the very small percentage of the population that might truly experience some kind of gender dysphoria. As you, I hope they can find happiness in life. But the attention is disproportionate to any real cultural impact. Why? Because it's not really about "trans" at all. It 's about conditioning people to reject reality in favor of the pronouncements of those in charge. It's the real world equivalent of Winston finally agreeing that 2 + 2 = 5. And thus Winston came to love Big Brother.
Thank you for writing this. I stumbled upon this via link from another stack and am so glad I clicked on it - wow. It articulated so well something that I have been trying to put into words for myself and in conversation with others and with my daughters, with only moderate success. This is such important stuff. You treat it with kindness but also keep it grounded in principle and reality and I appreciate that delicate tight rope you walked. Saving this Substack -- only a few reads get this distinction. Just subscribed too! ❤️
I wrote about the topic of language within this issue. I'm largely much more agnostic than you are about changing definitions, although we reach the same conclusion about "create your own": https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/what-boston-can-teach-us-about-what
That said, I have to concede your point in your last section about attributing examples of real-life confusion to these ever-shifting definitions. I can claim to be above that kind of simplistic thinking all I want, but I can't deny that it is having material impact. The most optimistic take I can offer is that I don't believe this is a stable equilibrium that can last forever. I note for example, how quickly the term "biological woman" came to be used, including by judges in court opinions. If you dull a word enough, people will (eventually) look for a sharper implement.
I should point out that way back when there was no formal distinction between sex and gender. Gender was more skewed towards non-biological realities. For example, your French teacher would ask you the gender of the noun Maison, but conversely, people talked about sex roles, interchangeably with gender roles. it’s only later that people opportunistically began to drive a wedge between the two.
Meaning that our non-recognition of gender as a separate thing is perhaps even more deeply founded than you suggest.
This doesn't at all contradict the main point you're making, but the use of "father" is a bit less constant across cultures than it might seem - some traditional cultures in South America believe in partible paternity, an idea that every man who has had sex with a woman while she is pregnant shares in the fatherhood of the child. Biologically, of course, this is not correct. I believe the theory among anthropologists is that partible paternity has prosocial effects - see e.g. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1002598107 for academic work on the matter. It seems like all the traditional societies mentioned would agree with you on the use of "man" and "woman" though.
Thank you for writing such an excellent distillation of this topic. I plan to share this widely.
Great essay, yes non-binary is just the frame we most of us occupy on moment to moment experience. The sense of self occurs in a space much bigger -than our sex and gendered experience. Perhaps where we've failed young people is not helping them understand that first-person phenomenological experience can be quite strange, and becoming an adult engaging in the world can take some getting used to. Anxiety, for example, could be thought of as a kind of existential dysphoria, not something we would just jump to surgery on, though of course it's heavily medicalised.