Criticism: The terms ‘trans’ and ‘transgender’ are riddled with intellectual ambiguity.
In a recent column, I argued that we should stop using the word “trans” or “transgender”. I demonstrated that these terms can be used to describe eight different individuals. Using a single word to mean so many things will undoubtedly cause confusion.
In this column, I’ll show how campaigners are using that distress to advance an arbitrary mission that very few people actually want. I’ll also provide ideas for what should be said.
In a previous article, I pointed out that the American Psychological Association defines trans as “an umbrella phrase for people whose gender identity, gender expression, or behavior does not usually correspond to that which is assigned to them at birth.”
The definition of gender identity is as follows: “Gender identity refers to a person’s internal feeling of being either male, female, or something else.
Substituting the definition of “gender identity” into the definition of “transgender”, we get the following statement:
“Transgender is an umbrella term for people who have an “internal sense of being male, female, or something else,” and whose gender expression or behavior doesn’t typically align with the sex to which they were born.
Thus, the name “transgender” is arbitrary, by description. There is no logical approach to list one on a label. You can’t reasonably argue with someone about their “internal sense of being male, female, or something else”.
This is the reason you might have observed interactions like this. At the mention of the possibility of a man labeling himself “transgender” so he can be housed in a children’s prison, the transgender rights activist did response, “Are you saying all transgender people are animals”?
No, I’m not. I’m saying that people may don the “transgender” logo for any purpose they want.
Or the transgender right defender might reply, “Have you no pity for the poor? Do you know that trans people are …” followed by remarks meant to elicit sympathy? Some of the people I mentioned in my previous column, such as an authentic gender-dysphoric youth or perhaps an intersex, quickly make the audience’s thoughts jump off their chair. They deserve our particular sympathy. Meanwhile, the predator smirks and gets locked in a cell in a women’s prison, where he has unfettered access to his preferred prey.
Is it impossible for a predator or pretender to “game the system” when the system is systematically subjective? The only way to resolve disagreements about whether someone is or is not “trans” is through the law of the strongest. The loudest, the richest, the most influential, and the most powerful will prevail. There is no room for reason or the good news.
Look at the devastated parents who lose their children to government officials who decide their child is “trans.” Look at the quarreling divorced parents who disagree with each other about their child’s “true” identity. Family courts, Child Protective Services, and other agents of the state decide the child’s “authentic identity”, using any criteria they want.
This is why we need to stop using the terms the words “trans” or “transgender”. These terms have ideologies embedded in them.
If you really want to help struggling teens, call them “gender dysphoric”, if that is what is going on with this particular person. Call them “socially awkward” and “struggling for friendship” if that’s the truth.
If you want to protect women from predators, don’t use the term “trans”. Call the man “a predatory man who claims to be a woman so he can easily get to his victims” to describe him. If you value women’s sports, call the guy “a mediocre male athlete who wants an easy path to winning competitions he couldn’t win against male competitors”.
And for the love of God and all mankind, stop calling Bruce Jenner “Caitlyn”. Stop calling Richard Levine “Rachel”. These men are most likely autogynephilic cross-dressers who enjoy dressing like women. Let’s not encourage them. And if one of these powerful men disagrees with you, demand the objective evidence that would support their non-autogynephilian status.
In short, don’t take the shortcut of saying “trans”. Use a lengthy, cliché phrase that accurately describes the subject you are addressing. This strategy has several advantages. First of all, that precise phrase prevents confusion and makes it more difficult for the activist to divert your attention away from your point. You have taken control of the rhetorical field.
Second, your lengthy but precise phrase sluggishly slows down the mental processes that politically charged terms are knowingly intended to instill. These words are expertly crafted and use ambiguity. When accompanied by lots of noisemaking, they short-circuit a normal, logical thought process.
For instance, at the sound of the word “trans”, we are all supposed to freeze: “I know something isn’t right here, but I can’t think what to say that is both true and protects me from the mob. I’ll be subjected to a lot of unpleasant noise or worse if I say the wrong thing. So, I will be silent”. Or worse, “I will conform”. The noisemaking, along with the ideological term, is an essential part of the diversion and aversion process.
When you say “trans,” you give your opponent an opportunity to open up the noisy mob and repress the change. You’ve slowed down the conversation and that reflexive thought process when you say “a mediocre male athlete who says he’s a woman so he can win for a change.” Although you might never be able to persuade a truly committed activist, those who are observing the conversation have the chance to consider what is actually happening. Some of them will be greatly enthralled and comforted.
That is why I don’t say “trans”.
