I hear you, but the left is buying in to the narrative the right wing wants us to. The left spend so much time obsessing about labels and outlier situations that none of the critical issues get addressed. We are so obsessed with nomenclature that we fail to advocate for substantive issues. I was going to get involved in the NYC Women’s Bar Association reproductive rights efforts until I read their statement about pregnant people. This is a WOMEN’s Bar Association - WTF? Why is the last bastion of being a women now being co-opted. It’s infuriating and demoralizing.
I grew up in a binary world. You were male or female. A or B. One or the other. Now I find myself trying to wrap my head around the idea of gender being defined (as much as it can be these days) on a spectrum and sexuality being "fluid." I can't claim to understand most of it, but then I don't need to...though I still try. What I need to do is to accept people where they live, for it's not my place to judge someone for who and how they define themselves.
As for being a woman, sometimes it's easy to lose sight of just how much is stacked against the distaff half of the population. Being a Penis-American, I try to be respectful and understanding, but truly grasping the perspective of women is beyond my capability. It's like rich people trying to understand the homeless- you think you have an appreciation for what they're going through, but in reality you don't have a fucking clue.
It upsets me that so many Penis-Americans view women as means to an end- the end being them getting their rocks off. Treating anyone, whether they're in possession of a vagina or a penis, with respect shouldn't be a radical concept. Yet for so many that seems to be the case.
I'm reminded of a clip I saw the other day of Senator Josh (run-like-a-baby-with-a-log-in-his-nappies) Hawley questioning someone during a hearing around this exact question of "define woman." The intent was clearly enough a line up to attack trans people, and the individual being questioned was doing a fairly smooth and intelligent job of not giving Hawley what he wanted. But your essay does help highlight (in my mind at least) the damned if you do/damned if you don't structure of the problem.
And of course the issue cannot be settled around "people who can get pregnant." There are women who are not trans, yet are incapable of conceiving, some of them from birth. There might be some overlap with Intersex people, because one can be born with the external squishy bits of one nominal gender, yet at the genetic &/or hormonal level have a body that goes in "the other direction."
This is part of the problem with what I've called "the myth of the binary," or if you're in the mood to whup language like a step-child, "binarity." There are at least three dimensions that are all supposed to be simple binaries but which are not. The above is "physical presentation," the other two (that I know of) being "sexual orientation" and "gender identification." In the absence of simple, sharply drawn binaries, essentialist definitions ("a woman =df X, Y, Z") are not possible. Hawley was trying to corner the witness into an essentialist definition.
I have to admit that I'm glad that the hardest I've ever had to fight for my right to exist is arguing that philosophy is a worthwhile subject to study.
NYRR - the NYC running organization that sponsors the NYC Marathon has the 50th Anniversary Mini 10K race last month. It was created 50 years ago when women were not permitted to run road races. I have run this race the past 4 years (except COVID when cancelled). This year, the 50th anniversary MEN were permitted to run. I was incensed. There are over 60 NYRR races a year - this is the only all female one - until now. And contrary to what some people think - it is not unlawful to have events and groups that women only because they are a protected class. Okay done with my rant.
Jul 28, 2022·edited Jul 28, 2022Liked by Stacey Eskelin
I don't think you've crossed any lines here, Stacey. Indeed, it's clear from the care you take to express your solidarity with trans-women that your intention isn't to invalidate them. I agree pretty much in total with your perspective here; your stance, the problems you've identified with changing pronouns, and your depiction of the lot of women in our patriarchal society, which men have created and maintain. The only slight exception I take with you is your claim that Rowling is, "sticking up for women?" In my opinion, this mis-characterizes her stance on trans women. Rowling isn't just defending women, that would be understandable, it's what you're doing here. However, the HUGE difference between what you're doing and what she's done is that you embrace trans women as a legitimate type of woman, only different from cis women. Rowling, unless I've badly misread her comments, is dismissive to the point of hostility to trans women. She is a hateful troll who is not worthy as an example of a reasonable trans woman critic. Indeed, she identifies as a TERF; Trans Exclusionary Radial Feminist, she doesn't accept trans women as any sort of legitimate woman, at all. But other than using Rowling as a reputable example, I think you essentially got everything else in this piece right.
Well-written, and I agree with every word. Thank you.
The quote from RGB really made me roll my eyes when it came out.
I've had three pregnancies to get one living child. I had to become a Pregnancy Warrior, including multiple surgeries and a year in bed over the course of the three pregnancies. Don't talk to me about Pregnant People. I welcome transwomen, but do NOT talk to me about Pregnant People.
So you can imagine my hair is on fire about the abortion insanity.
I hear you, but the left is buying in to the narrative the right wing wants us to. The left spend so much time obsessing about labels and outlier situations that none of the critical issues get addressed. We are so obsessed with nomenclature that we fail to advocate for substantive issues. I was going to get involved in the NYC Women’s Bar Association reproductive rights efforts until I read their statement about pregnant people. This is a WOMEN’s Bar Association - WTF? Why is the last bastion of being a women now being co-opted. It’s infuriating and demoralizing.
I grew up in a binary world. You were male or female. A or B. One or the other. Now I find myself trying to wrap my head around the idea of gender being defined (as much as it can be these days) on a spectrum and sexuality being "fluid." I can't claim to understand most of it, but then I don't need to...though I still try. What I need to do is to accept people where they live, for it's not my place to judge someone for who and how they define themselves.
As for being a woman, sometimes it's easy to lose sight of just how much is stacked against the distaff half of the population. Being a Penis-American, I try to be respectful and understanding, but truly grasping the perspective of women is beyond my capability. It's like rich people trying to understand the homeless- you think you have an appreciation for what they're going through, but in reality you don't have a fucking clue.
It upsets me that so many Penis-Americans view women as means to an end- the end being them getting their rocks off. Treating anyone, whether they're in possession of a vagina or a penis, with respect shouldn't be a radical concept. Yet for so many that seems to be the case.
Women are crazy because men are assholes.
I'm reminded of a clip I saw the other day of Senator Josh (run-like-a-baby-with-a-log-in-his-nappies) Hawley questioning someone during a hearing around this exact question of "define woman." The intent was clearly enough a line up to attack trans people, and the individual being questioned was doing a fairly smooth and intelligent job of not giving Hawley what he wanted. But your essay does help highlight (in my mind at least) the damned if you do/damned if you don't structure of the problem.
And of course the issue cannot be settled around "people who can get pregnant." There are women who are not trans, yet are incapable of conceiving, some of them from birth. There might be some overlap with Intersex people, because one can be born with the external squishy bits of one nominal gender, yet at the genetic &/or hormonal level have a body that goes in "the other direction."
This is part of the problem with what I've called "the myth of the binary," or if you're in the mood to whup language like a step-child, "binarity." There are at least three dimensions that are all supposed to be simple binaries but which are not. The above is "physical presentation," the other two (that I know of) being "sexual orientation" and "gender identification." In the absence of simple, sharply drawn binaries, essentialist definitions ("a woman =df X, Y, Z") are not possible. Hawley was trying to corner the witness into an essentialist definition.
I have to admit that I'm glad that the hardest I've ever had to fight for my right to exist is arguing that philosophy is a worthwhile subject to study.
Eye opening, not career -ending. And oh-so-you!
Thank you for addressing this and opening a forum for discussion.
I don't believe this will be "career-ending." You are soaring. Keep it going!
NYRR - the NYC running organization that sponsors the NYC Marathon has the 50th Anniversary Mini 10K race last month. It was created 50 years ago when women were not permitted to run road races. I have run this race the past 4 years (except COVID when cancelled). This year, the 50th anniversary MEN were permitted to run. I was incensed. There are over 60 NYRR races a year - this is the only all female one - until now. And contrary to what some people think - it is not unlawful to have events and groups that women only because they are a protected class. Okay done with my rant.
TRUTH
I don't think you've crossed any lines here, Stacey. Indeed, it's clear from the care you take to express your solidarity with trans-women that your intention isn't to invalidate them. I agree pretty much in total with your perspective here; your stance, the problems you've identified with changing pronouns, and your depiction of the lot of women in our patriarchal society, which men have created and maintain. The only slight exception I take with you is your claim that Rowling is, "sticking up for women?" In my opinion, this mis-characterizes her stance on trans women. Rowling isn't just defending women, that would be understandable, it's what you're doing here. However, the HUGE difference between what you're doing and what she's done is that you embrace trans women as a legitimate type of woman, only different from cis women. Rowling, unless I've badly misread her comments, is dismissive to the point of hostility to trans women. She is a hateful troll who is not worthy as an example of a reasonable trans woman critic. Indeed, she identifies as a TERF; Trans Exclusionary Radial Feminist, she doesn't accept trans women as any sort of legitimate woman, at all. But other than using Rowling as a reputable example, I think you essentially got everything else in this piece right.
This deserves an intelligent, thoughtful response, but I have no bandwidth for that at the moment. So I'll just say this: right on!
Well-written, and I agree with every word. Thank you.
The quote from RGB really made me roll my eyes when it came out.
I've had three pregnancies to get one living child. I had to become a Pregnancy Warrior, including multiple surgeries and a year in bed over the course of the three pregnancies. Don't talk to me about Pregnant People. I welcome transwomen, but do NOT talk to me about Pregnant People.
So you can imagine my hair is on fire about the abortion insanity.
A good essay. I have a few issues with the positions