The time for confidence is now.
The time for confidence is now.
W hen debating trans activists, it’s best not to use preferred pronouns or defensively emphasize one’s heartfelt sympathy for “trans people.” Doing so is playing into a trap. Much of what is intended as courtesy is interpreted as concession. And much of what is intended as a show of good faith is interpreted as weakness.
Consider J. K. Rowling. In writing her defense of women’s sex-based rights, the Harry Potter author has repeatedly underscored her liberal sympathies, writing: “I know and love trans people,” “I respect every trans person’s right to live any way that feels authentic to them,” “I feel nothing but empathy and solidarity with trans women who have been abused by men,” etc.
It’s not clear what Rowling means by “trans person.” Since she’s an ardent defender of the reality of sex, she presumably means a person who so hates their sexed body that they would go to great lengths to disguise it. But of course, that’s not what trans activists mean.
Rather than soften the blow, Rowling’s proclaimed respect for transgender identity only further angered her detractors, who added the charge of hypocrisy to the charge of transphobia.
“Rowling can say she likes everyone, but she has displayed that [transphobic] prejudice time and time again” (Vox). “When Rowling flags herself as an ally . . . she routinely follows up with some form of ‘but’ that draws a thick line between trans women and all other women” (the Cut). “Rowling’s views on transwomen [are] a strange brew of prejudice, ignorance and paranoia” and “the opposite of everything that was good about Harry Potter” (the Telegraph).
In other words, only total allegiance will do. As Lia (formerly Will) Thomas, the controversial swimmer who competed in the NCAA women’s swim championships despite being a man, explained on a recent podcast: “[Some people are] like, ‘Oh, we respect Lia, as a woman, as a trans woman or whatever, we respect her identity, we just don’t think it’s fair.’ You can’t really have that sort of half support where you’re like, ‘Oh, I respect her as a woman here, but not here.’”
A man previously known as Rhys McKinnon — who has ridiculously changed his name twice, first to “Rachel” then to “Veronica Ivy” — made the same point to Sky News in 2019: “[Sport] is central to society. So, if you want to say, ‘I believe you’re a woman for all of society except this massive central part of sport,’ then that’s not fair. So, fairness is the inclusion of trans women.”
In a way, they’re right that the middle-of-the-road position is logically inconsistent. The problem isn’t that “transgender women” are women with special, unfair advantages. The problem is that “transgender women” are men. And as a matter of principle — as much as practicality — men do not belong in women’s sports.
If our desired outcome is protecting women’s sports and spaces, then we must use sex-based language consistently and without apology. Besides, what do we have to lose, given that nothing other than total compliance to the trans activists’ demands will placate them anyway?
Many adults have now reached this point of “peak trans.” The price of not being called transphobic is simply too high. But for adolescents and young adults, the thought of being hated or rejected by peers can seem a fate worse than death. That’s the real reason Thomas’s competitors tried to take the middle-of-the-road approach. It’s not because they really respect him as a “transgender woman” or even care about his identity. They just want to be able to compete in their own sports fairly without being publicly shamed.
Parents of Ivy League swimmers wrote a letter published in the New York Post, explaining the injustice in clear terms.
Athletic associations are cautiously asking: How do we balance fairness and inclusion? And they ask scientists to tell them the precise level to which a male body needs to be impaired to compete fairly against women. But they are asking the wrong questions. These questions are misogynistic, degrading, and dehumanizing for women. There is no balance of fairness to assess. Women deserve fairness without caveat, and they should not be asked to shoulder the mental health of others at their own expense. A male body cannot become a female body. A woman is not a disadvantaged man. [Emphasis added]
On a recent episode of Dr. Phil, Kara Dansky, the author of The Abolition of Sex: How the ‘Transgender’ Agenda Harms Women and Girls, was asked if by “women” she also meant “trans women.” Dansky replied with great aplomb: “I don’t mean men. I mean women.” A trans-identifying opponent replied: “So you think trans women are men?”
“It’s not a matter of opinion,” Danksy said calmly. “We’re talking about the material reality of biological sex, which is grounded in science and reality. Women are female, and men are male. And it’s okay to say so. It really is.”
She’s right.
There’s nothing wrong with being a man. There’s nothing wrong with being a woman. And there is nothing hateful in observing which of the two categories a person belongs to. There can be no appeasement when it comes to transgenderism. Please stop using activist jargon. The time for confidence is now.