I'm disappointed - Zoe Williams on language

[Pinkfairylights]

An infuriating article smearing women for not wanting the word mother to be excised from discussions around childbirth. We're apparently right wingers who don't believe trans people exist.

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/oct/14/language-society-trans-people-tolerance-debate-words

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.

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.

sorry "work through a clear thought process"

I honestly can’t make head nor tail of it

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.

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.

Yep. It was a disappointing read to be honest.

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!

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?

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.

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 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.

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’.

In fact, particularly in the medical case, the NHS isn’t even responding to a demand from trans people;

These organisations are largely responding to demands by Stonewall, but some transactivists also do make demands of organisations. They often make this public on twitter/tiktok etc so it's hardly hard to find.

trying to scope out to the fullest extent the ways in which professionals can get ahead of mishap

And yet these language changes and the many other changes being made in the name of trans inclusivity pave the way for really serious fucking "mishap" for a wide range of people - including trans people themselves if they need medical help their sex isn't recorded accurately. Not to mention women who for various reasons such as English being not their first language might not know what a cervix is so won't go for a smear for "people with a cervix". Or perhaps women being raped /attacked in prison by men who've realised all they have to do is claim to be a woman. Or female athletes who will no longer have careers if men can just invade their categories. Or lesbians who are being bullied and coerced into sex with men for fear of not being inclusive and woke. And on and on with the "mishaps"

Very poor piece. She starts out saying that nobody really wants to abolish the word Mother. We are all just being hysterical to cover up our latest phobia. Then concludes by saying of course it is correct to dump Mother because language evolves innit? In between she makes an analogy between the Suffragette struggle and transgenderism. Of course she can't make the more usual link with homosexual rights - because all those grumpy gay people would tell her where to shove it.

@Thulian

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. She will say anything off the top of her head IMO and it doesn't surprise me she's not on the scientific side of this argument.

One side of the debate doesn’t think trans people are real; they might feel what they feel, but the rest of us don’t have to join them in that reality.

This is one of many untruths in that article that show a massive misunderstanding of the issue, failure to look into the facts, and willingness to lap up anything trans ideology teaches without questioning it.

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.

"You don't think we exist/have a right to exist" is absolutely classic genderist projection and straw-manning but Williams lacks the critical thinking capacity to interrogate it.

Great post. Religious people have full equality in society but it doesn't mean they decide every thing about rules and laws that affect everyone else too.

The language thing puzzles me because if people believe twaw and tmam then why do they themselves use the term 'trans' and 'cis'? It's almost like they know there is a difference.

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.

Agreed, this makes no sense at all. It makes no sense because it certainly is responding to demands from trans activists in the form of Stonewall: using gender-neutral language moves you up the workplace index. Secondly, getting rid of words such as "mother", "maternal" and "breast" don't build trust. They do the exact opposite.

Third, if you want to "get ahead of mishap" then you would want to use language that is as clear, plain and accessible to the vast majority of your patients as possible.

Hundreds of thousands of babies are born every year in the UK. How many are born to trans men? Dozens? A few hundred?

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

This. I used to like her writing but now find her smug, glib and tedious no matter what the subject is. She’s basically a tenured columnist so presumably doesn’t need to try to be sharp or coherent anymore.

@OrangeJuiceAndNoodles

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.

When I was teenager I think she used to have a column in More magazine. A lively, funny few hundred words a fortnight aimed at teenage girls fantasising about what their lives would be like in a few years when they moved out of home. Self-depreciating but exciting. (I'd be interested in reading some now because I did love More when I was 16-17 but I don't doubt it was full of really problematic shit.) I remember really enjoying her column and admiring her writing. But she's a writer with a style that means she'd probably have written some really enjoyable Marian Keyes type novels.

Zoe Williams a horror. Dubious morals to say the least.

I have a very good command of English (I think), but it’s not my native language and words matter and mean things! So I’ve learned English and In a way where on occasions where I am unsure of a word or making a mistake I will refer to Swedish..it’s easy to translate from my native language if there was a word I don’t know.. for example one day I forgot the English word for cheese grater.. and the other day the little plate that goes under a coffe cup tea cup.. I just said under cup but then my American friend said it’s called a saucer. But translating from literal Swedish it was for me an under cup. 😂

My point is.. for those of us even considering ourselves fluent English speakers, there can be so many times where we need to have clear understanding and clear communication about what a word means.

I feel like all this word play and pronoun demands places a heavier burden on non native English speakers. Do you want people to master the language? I have a strong accent (I’ve been told) and I know sometimes people cannot understand me because I’ve pronounced words in a way that just was wrong, but I try my best. But I know I speak good English, but for someone who has a heavy accent and also is not fluent in English and hey say someone is a woman and then someone tells them someone who is obviously a woman is a man and explains all this ideaology… then what will happen?

The whole pronoun thing also can totally throw someone off as well. I would consider myself fluent in English, but I make mistakes and if someone has a strong accent then I might also have an issue to understand if they pronounce a word a certain way etc.. so I just wonder how we have any hope to get around this?

Are non native English speakers going to be unjustly and disproportionately accused of transphobia? I just really wonder about this for people who are learning English or learn English and know what woman means, what man means.

Or am I over thinking this?

It makes no sense because it certainly is responding to demands from trans activists in the form of Stonewall

Specifically one campaigner who works for the Guardian. How is Zoe Williams seemingly unaware of this?

I would guess that the NHS has to treat more mothers who are members of an Orthodox Jewish community than trans men, but there is no expectation that general policies endorse their beliefs to be more inclusive.

Marshmallow you are absolutely not overthinking.

Changes to simple, well understood languages will seriously affect people with English as a second/third language, along with people who have poor literacy skills or learning disabilities.