I found the line - I am a transwoman and a woman, not a man - very interesting.
It sums up the issue, for me:
Hazel gets 2 nouns to use to describe them. I - we! - get none. Zilch. Nothing.
If "woman" is used for "transwoman", it can't apply to me or even, frankly, most women globally, in the way in which we conceive of ourselves. "Ciswoman" certainly doesn't, because this only functions on the assumption that 1) transwomen are a kind of women and 2) I "identify with my gender" (or whatever equivalent phrase you prefer). "Female" is inadequate and even somewhat degrading used as an adjectival noun, indiscriminately applicable as it is to animals, too. Just as some female animals get their own words besides this, I rather think adult human females are deserving of a unique semantic marker too (I mean, WOW - that I even have to type that is fucking terrifying!!!)
So yes, there's absolutely an ethical debate to be had here. Yes, there are two conflicting sides. Yes, given this, rights aren't a pie and compromises must be made. (Anyone who argues against this now either isn't really following this debate, or denies the validity of female voices full-stop, as well as the Supreme Court, really!)
So, from a democratic, left-leaning and liberal perspective - just as someone fair-minded and practical - I find it astonishing that
- People so confident that they're on the side of right are confidently laying claim to the very language necessary to enable the other "side" even to participate in said debate
and
- Those same people are arguing for the right to self-definition in a way that denies another group the same. They have "transwomen" (I actually think it was generous of women even to permit this, but they need something and it works for them, so great, that's fine by me) but they also lay claim to the one and only word the other side has (and has used for millenia) - "woman".
To me, whatever else about this debate maybe difficult or problematic or troubling, it always comes back to the inescapable truth that whereas one group argues that the other should retain the ability and right to refer to and advocate for themselves as a distinct political demographic (GC feminists), the other side seeks to deny their "opponents" the same (TRAs).
The other thing that assures me of my "side" in this debate is that, if we move from the democratic argument based on fairness, above, to a utilitarian one - what's practical...
Historically speaking, of these two conflicting groups, only one - the one now without a name - was systemically and proactively denied a political voice to advocate for their rights just a 100 years or so ago. To me, it's self-evident that the ready large-scale removal of this group's language and recognition as a distinct demographic (I mean, I can't even use "women" here to unambiguously make this argument without qualifying it with eg. the adjective "biological" - it's appalling!) is in fact a reflection of how fragile (biological) women's rights still are.
And if we, conversely, use an argument of scale... When you think about the numbers of deaths, women are dying in their millions globally (and tens of thousands just in the UK, eg. due to car design and heart attack treatment relying on the male default). And women are enslaved in Afghanistan and other countries (in a way that had the western world in furious conflict and at war when it affected Black slaves and South African apartheid: not so much for women who, conversely, are being told they they're morally dubious even for wanting to use their old word to unambiguously describe these abuses). Those numbers vastly overshadow any others.
Hazel, the tone of your posts means I don't really expect or hope for a meaningful reply to this (I've never had one yet that comes close to addressing these points without evasion, misrepresentation or insult). Plus, I'm hoping to get back to work soon! But if your posts here, and your "essay", genuinely aren't intended to be parody or somewhat absurdist (still unsure, tbh) and you really do believe you have the intellectual and moral highground(?!), maybe you could think back to your misuse of "pathological" and consider that there may be similar inconsistencies, ironies and glaring omissions in your arguments about women's rights. Posters here expect a high standard of debate on this very tough issue.
ETA before posting: Just seen your last post to me. So, yeah, that would fall under the category of evasion (now bolded above for reference).