I'm disappointed - Zoe Williams on language

When you’re trying to care for someone in an extreme situation, such as giving birth, you’re not making rules for society – you’re just trying to build trust.

She writes as though these policies aren’t a direct reaction to advice given by Stonewall et al, and don’t include ideological language like ‘sex assigned at birth’.

I didn't read the article because I knew it would infuriate me.

Personally on inclusive language I don't mind if services use "women and transmen/people with cervixes" "women and people who have periods" etc, even though it is inaccurate because the former category includes the latter - but no way will I stand for being renamed as menstruator, cervix haver, uterus owner etc as if my entire being could be reduced to my reproductive system.

The article makes no sense. Particularly this paragraph:

These are the building blocks of the gender-critical argument on language. First, take an elemental word – “mother”, “breastfeeding”, “woman” – a word that you can’t describe the world without. Then say that trans people want to replace it with a word that sounds quite alien or unpronounceable: “caregiver”, “chestfeeding”, “womxn”. Next, claim that anyone who slips up will be instantly attacked or cancelled. Often, the case will be proved by a medical, scientific or academic document – the Lancet, or an NHS leaflet to staff, or the American Civil Liberties Union’s adaptation of a Ruth Bader Ginsberg quote. This gives heft to the claim of totality – that the language is being changed, without general consent, by militants. In fact, particularly in the medical case, the NHS isn’t even responding to a demand from trans people; it’s just trying to scope out to the fullest extent the ways in which professionals can get ahead of mishap. When you’re trying to care for someone in an extreme situation, such as giving birth, you’re not making rules for society – you’re just trying to build trust.

So she accurately outlines exactly what happens but is claiming this is the untrue trope. But apparently it’s not militants demanding this change or actually threatening/cancelling people who don’t comply, it’s about so these organisations can “get ahead of mishap” . So no one is campaigning for these changes, or attacking people on Twitter like Rosie Duffield? What “mishap” is the NHS trying to get ahead of? And they’ve just done it off their own back have they?!

And building trust for whom exactly? Not women, that’s for sure. And not a single mention of how none of these organisations who are apparently doing this all themselves to create trust (the Lancet?!) aren’t doing this with the word “man”.

It’s just word vomit.

I think Zoe Williams is massively indulged by the Guardian. She knocks out so many pieces that they allow her just to write any rubbish she wants.

I have read that article twice and I still have no idea what point she’s trying to make - I am tired though.

The piece jumps around so much and seems to contradict itself repeatedly. I think she’s saying that language should evolve, it’s no big deal and we should just get over ourselves?

I’m not a birthing parent, so I wonder how language should evolve to describe me (noting the difference between me and my husband), and what would it suggest my kids call me?

If we wrote this sentence about, for example, Christians, it would instantly be clear that you can disagree with someone's unevidenced beliefs and feelings, while still respecting that they are entitled to have those beliefs and feelings, and of course that they exist.

Exactly!

Yep. It was a disappointing read to be honest.

She pulls out suffragettes demanding that the "he" in electoral language is replaced with (presumably) "they" as if that's some sort of gotcha but (a) preventing women from voting isn't analogous to not letting transwomen into women's prisons etc (b) women make up ~50% of the population so, of course, language should reflect that, unlike the ~1% trans population.

She is doing that thing that both left and right wing columnists do - misrepresenting the opposing argument to make her point. Rod Liddle does the same thing.

Fills a few column inches, but doesn’t do anything to enlighten readers. It just drives division. I think she did the same thing when she was writing about Brexit.

I honestly can’t make head nor tail of it

sorry "work through a clear thought process"

Actually I remember the article she wrote that made me certain she couldn't think logically and just witters on meaninglessly for money. It was about "honey traps"

I've just found it here and it's from 2004!

If anyone wants to bear with me while I get this off my chest, please do otherwise ignore me as I know how petty this is.

It disproportionately annoyed me that she said the reverse of a honey trap, where a male would hypothetically entrap a female with sex, should be called a beer trap. In a honey trap, the man is drawn to the woman like a fly or whatever to honey. The same would apply to the reverse in exactly the same way. But if we are assuming that "honey" means woman (which I think she is - wrongly but whatever), then the reverse would be a studmuffin trap or a hunk trap or something. Not a beer trap - which logically implies that women would be attracted by beer, whereas she's used beer because she's thinking of that as what men like.

Aaaarggh it drove me nuts that she was being paid to produce such nonsensical rubbish. A "fluffy" opinion piece like that can be fun but only if it takes you along with it.

Yes I was young and innocent in those days and didn't think journalists could just make up nonsense and have a career out of it.

But the issue at hand requires the ability to work thought a clear thought process.

I'm posting before reading (I know - very bad) but Zoe Williams has, if I recall correctly, previously written about how the role of feminism is to stand up for all other minority groups, as opposed to supporting women. So I'm expecting more of the same.

Ironic though that this is in relation to Kathleen Stock, who has been consistent in calling out transphobia where it actually exists on 'our side' of the fence.

More broadly, I feel like ZW used to be a better and more incisive writer than she is now - like going back 20 years or something - but I might just be reflecting that I was younger with less refined judgment then?

I hate the Guardian but read Marina Hyde's column. I feel icky, but I like Marina.

Grauniad, innit?

Stock, Stock - damn autocorrect

Sensible letters on Kathleen Stick are being published … so worth writing in?

Please see the post above and calculate yourself how much shame you think Im feeling right now

She's been a handmaiden for ages. Like the rest of them, her case is based entirely on a misrepresentation of the other side.

She also demonstrates how much this is a luxury belief: she doesn't care about women in prison being locked up with rapists, because she'll never be in prison; she doesn't care about women sharing space in domestic violence refuges with abusers, because she believes she'll never need a domestic violence refuge; she doesn't care about female athletes competing with males, because she's not a professional athlete.

I've never liked her writing at all - it gives the strong impression of being cobbled together in 25 mins and is often internally incoherent.

I agree. I've always felt that her writing had a giddy, babbly energy. I just really struggle with it.

I only used to see her in the Saturday Guardian. Now we get the Sunday Times instead (even though Rod Liddel and Jeremy Clarkson :) )
She just wittered about keeping fit, so don't miss her at all....

Williams has nothing to say of any interest or note.