Progressives are erasing and redefining ‘woman.’
Progressives are erasing and redefining ‘woman.’
T he Daily Wire produced a documentary that features conservative commentator Matt Walsh traveling worldwide to ask a simple question: “What is a woman?” The responses are both shocking and unintelligible. The diverse interviewees include professors, female athletes, African villagers, and random pedestrians. The movie’s initial comical tone grows sinister, as eminent doctors offer absurd explanations of gender as a social construct isolable from biological sex, then proceed to justify genital mutilation, castration, and sterilization for minors. Scholars in the movie condemn the pathologizing of gender dysphoria but praise its medical treatment. Those arguing that gender is independent of sex simultaneously encourage surgeries so that embodiment and gender identity correspond.
Walsh refrains from debating and does not attempt to change his interlocutors’ minds. Instead, he asks direct questions, and in response, progressives disgrace themselves repeatedly by failing to defend their own ideology with substantive arguments. The irony is profound: The people who earn degrees in women’s studies apparently do not know what they are studying. It is troubling when the “experts” in the film provide definitions for “woman” that are wrong, but it is astounding when they cannot provide any definition and resort to the circular explanation that a woman is a person who identifies as a woman.
I applaud the documentary as another valiant achievement in the effort to combat gender ideology, a ridiculous — and dangerous — thought experiment pervading virtually every aspect of American culture. Yet it neglects an important linguistic, sociopolitical phenomenon that deserves attention. The film operates on the premise that proponents of gender theory employ the word “woman.” Increasingly, they don’t. Progressives are crippled by a commitment to inclusivity, which demands abandoning the term “woman” in favor of gender-neutral language or phrasal substitutes such as “people with uteruses.”
Feminism combats sexism, and sexism presupposes sex. But in the West, gender has supplanted sex. Progressives argue that gender is not a binary of male and female but rather a spectrum: An individual can identify with a gender different from his or her sex, or both genders, or many genders, or no gender at all. Yet once one accepts the premise that “woman” does not refer exclusively to biological women, the word cannot be employed in the context of biological distinctions without implying a degree of separation between biological and self-identified women, which defeats the argument that affirming female identity constitutes female embodiment. If “woman” is not a sex-based concept but rather a psychological, emotional state of identity that embraces both sexes, then “women’s health” is simply “health,” and a “woman’s right to choose” is just a “right to choose.”
Yet the feminist emphasis on reproductive rights depends on distinct reproductive organs. Biological women who renounce their femaleness and declare transgender status are not exempt from menstruation, pregnancy, ovarian cancer, or other matters pertaining to reproduction.
Progressives face a problem: Can language be gender-inclusive in sex-specific contexts?
One solution is homogenization. Progressives employ gender-neutral terms and substitute sex-specific words such as “woman” with hypernyms such as “people” and “individuals,” thereby encompassing both sexes and effectively any gender identity — assuming that gender identity still operates within the confines of personhood and does not enable one to identify as a nonhuman entity. (Be warned that kitten/kittenself pronouns already exist.) For progressives, gender neutrality equals gender inclusiveness because the entire spectrum is represented.
The use of inclusive language is not limited to scattered small groups. In fact, the government has adopted it. The Department of Health and Human Services committed millions of dollars to assisting “pregnant people.” The FDA used “pregnant people” in the context of abortions. President Biden’s 2022 budget proposal referred to women as “birthing people.” Representative Cori Bush (D., Mo.) testified in support of “black birthing people” before a House oversight committee. The CDC website has a subsection titled “Pregnant and Recently Pregnant People” on its Covid-19 page, explaining that, “if you are pregnant or were recently pregnant, you are more likely to get very sick from COVID-19 compared to people who are not pregnant.” How should this be interpreted? Are pregnant women more likely “to get very sick from COVID-19” in comparison to non-pregnant women, or in comparison to all people?
Newspapers mandate inclusive language for journalists. The AP Stylebook has a 2021 entry for “pregnant people” explaining that “the inclusive term ‘pregnant people’ is preferred when describing people who are pregnant. It takes into account minors, transgender men and nonbinary people. Aim to use the phrase ‘pregnant women’ only when it’s known everyone the term applies to identifies as a woman.”
Examples are endless. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) has used the phrase “menstruating persons.” The menstrual-product company Callaly argues that “not everyone who menstruates is a woman (periods can be experienced by trans men, and intersex and non binary people too) just as not all women menstruate (for a range of reasons including contraception, menopause, health conditions and trans gender)”so “‘women’ is therefore not the most accurate word to use when we’re talking about the people who use our products.” Tampax tweeted: “Fact: Not all women have periods. Also a fact: Not all people with periods are women. Let’s celebrate the diversity of all people who bleed!” NPR tweeted that “people who menstruate are saying it’s hard to find tampons on store shelves across the U.S. right now, as supply chain upsets reach the feminine care aisle.” Evidently, “feminine care” is not experienced by females but rather by “people who menstruate.”
Organizations serving women deny the existence of women. The National Women’s Law Center tweeted that “people of all genders need abortions.” If “people” is gender-inclusive, isn’t “people of all genders” redundant?
Across this homogenizing rhetoric, the word “woman” is suspiciously absent when the only possible referent could be a female. Women are erased from women’s issues. Some progressives realize that gender-neutral language is counterproductive in contexts such as abortion, maternal mortality, uterine cancer, and miscarriage. Suggesting that men endure such struggles invalidates women’s suffering. Put simply: Gender-neutral language fails in sex-specific contexts.
A new dilemma for progressives is that language needs to be gender-inclusive and sex-specific without suggesting dissonance between anatomy and identity. A second linguistic tactic emerges: specifying biological women by reducing females to anatomical features and biological capacities, thereby effectively redefining “women.”
Women are now “menstruators.” In 2022, a New York Times article stated that “the average menstruator can use thousands of tampons in their lifetime” and referred to teen girls as “new menstruators.” The London Women’s March referred to female members of Parliament as “menstruators.” The Guardian tweeted that “last year, YouGov asked 538 menstruators about their experiences of period pain in the workplace; 57% said it had affected their work.” The Aunt Flow organization sells menstrual products and donates one product for every ten sold, servicing “menstruators in need.” Aunt Flow explicitly affirms its commitment to inclusive language: “We refer to all period products as ‘menstrual products’ instead of ‘feminine hygiene products.’” Accordingly, Aunt Flow installs menstrual-product dispensers in male bathrooms. Perhaps the organization should change its name — Aunt Flow might be transphobic.
Referring to women as “menstruators” reduces them to biological functions, whereas other alternatives reduce them to anatomical features. In 2021, a Planned Parenthood of Illinois blog argued that “one in four people with uteruses in the United States will have an abortion in their lifetime—which means everyone knows someone who’s had an abortion, whether it’s a neighbor, a relative, a church member, or a friend.” All people with uteruses are women, and a person without a uterus could not have an abortion. In 2021, the national Planned Parenthood account tweeted, “sexually speaking, folks with a vulva are far more than reproductive machines.” Ironically, “folks with a vulva” reduces women to their sex organs and degrades them to “reproductive machines.”
The glossy pages of Teen Vogue are decorated with phrases such as “vagina owners,” “vulva-owners,” and “vulva-havers.” Apparently, the editors cannot determine a preferred synonym for “women” (or consistent hyphenation). A 2019 article includes a diagram of a female body titled “anatomy of a non-prostate owner.” This defines females as lacking maleness; a woman is the negation of man. Teen Vogue, whose primary consumers are women, neglects to acknowledge women.
The progressive demand for inclusivity has infiltrated the English language, evident across government websites, newspaper style guides, commercial advertising, and an array of publications. “Woman” is being erased and replaced with gender-neutral terms such as “person” or dehumanizing pseudo-synonyms that redefine women with respect to sexual, reproductive functions. Meanwhile, the word “man” is apparently uncontroversial, and there is no recognition of “people with penises.”
Perhaps a sequel to Matt Walsh’s documentary is necessary. It could ask, “Who are people with uteruses?” If the response is “women,” we will find ourselves returning to the question, “What is a woman?”
