Trans rights are an important topic to me even though I am not trans. I am grateful for your coverage. This, plus your unapologetic use of the word "lie" to describe people say things that are false, ensures that I will be a subscriber for some time to come. Thanks Parker.
Trans issues are important to me, a cis man. If someone unsubscribes because they feel you talk about trans issues too much, I think we're all better off without them.
Kind of off-topic, but I can't even imagine the mindset of someone who appreciates your work enough to be a paid subscriber, but then is like "Oh, you talked about trans people too much, peace out". We'd all love for this not to be a topic of discussion, but *gestures broadly*
Oh, no, I totally understood where they were coming from. It's fine, really. I was mostly like, "Oh no, I better put a note here to be like, 'hey, I get that I've been writing a lot about this lately! don't worry, I'll cover more stuff, too!'" than anything else.
Women hating on trans men makes me extra sad. Being born with a uterus comes with enough baggage in and of itself, it's awful to see women calling a trans man a traitor (or variation thereof). I can't articulate it much better than to say reading some of those tweets gave me a visceral reaction of sadness I could physically feel.
I think right now that a lot of people are scared and frustrated. And when scared and frustrated, I think sometimes people lash out. Just yesterday I got in a Twitter argument with someone about trans issues and I was such a a total jerk to him. It took me a few hours to come to terms with the fact that I wasn't even actually angry at this guy, but just really scared about the state of the world right now. The guy I argued with was kind enough to accept my apology, which I'm really thankful for.
Anyway, this is all pretty unrelated to your comment (sorry!), but I'm trying to be mindful of the stress that people are under right now, and with Roe being overturned, it's easy to understand why some people might respond to that outcome and lash out at trans men (and trans women, even though... what?) and some nonbinary people.
Pamela Paul wrote, "Previously a commonly understood term for half the world’s population, the word [woman] had a specific meaning tied to genetics, biology, history, politics and culture. No longer." Ironic that she would say that, as it seems pretty clear that her understanding of the word takes no account of history, politics, or culture, and is tied solely to genetics and biology, and even then only in a limited sense.
I think the most frustrating aspect of her piece was the part where she mentioned something about progressive groups no longer standing up for and advancing women's rights even though that's just such a bizarre and obviously false claim that she didn't back up.
I love everything you write, and especially how you write about trans issues so I will be looking forward to future pieces! I’m not trans but I love someone who is and the more I learn how to speak to these issues, as an ally, the better. Thank you for your clarity and insight.
I'm personally not going to use the terms "pregnant people", "chest feeding", or "menstruator".
Fine if YOU want to, I get your intention and respect that. Just don't force ME to use those terms, unless it is in reference to a VERY specific case or person.
I also refuse to cancel anyone else for not using those terms either. Sorrynotsorry.
All good! I don't think this problem is anywhere near as widespread as it's made out to be. "Chestfeeding" was something that first caused controversy because a British hospital was like, "BTW, if you have any trans men or nonbinary people as patients, be mindful of your words," and then included a list of terms that *some* trans men and nonbinary people with babies might use. Even that hospital was clear that those terms weren't meant to be used in replacement of terms like "breastfeeding," "pregnant woman," etc.
It blew up into a whole thing after that, even though what that hospital did by putting that out in their memo was meant to be accommodating for rare cases. Unfortunately, the internet outrage machine does its thing.
You do you, Fly Girl! We can all get along, I hope!
It’s really kind of pathetic to see so many (mostly, but not exclusively) cis men get so upset when someone else uses slightly different, but more descriptive language. They’ve really ... for lack of a better term.. such snowflakes. (Kind of ironic right?)
Of course I realize that much of this is just fake outrage designed to push a particular agenda against the existence of tans people. But of course as you note there are a large number of people who read headlines and uncritically accept there is a war on words where there is none.
Speaking of snowflakes, I was reading the comments on “another” Substack newsletter that got into the horror that some real estate ads were now referring to the “master bedroom” in a house as the “main bedroom.”
A large number of homes are now bought by single women (apparently without the advice and approval of a man!) So real estate agents, whose primary concern is selling houses and getting rich, have started using more generic and less dated terms (language does evolve). Yet the men who were commenting on this development saw it as an attack on their manhood. Sad.
Hi Parker. I learned of, and subscribed to, your newsletter because of this excellent post. I'm in a big bruhaha with someone I respect and admire related to it so I would like to ask directly:
Does replacing "womens rights" with "human rights" still include trans, non-binary, two-spirit, et al the way folks would like it to? I argue it does not, nor does making this change seem to be what you are saying here. Rather than argue with someone else I'd rather hear it from you. My contention is that using "human rights" still makes marginalized invisible in a way that doing the clunky work of naming them in the conversation doesn't.
As I mentioned in the piece and elsewhere, etc., I think that it's important to specifically mention the group that is primarily affected by an issue. In the case of Roe v. Wade being overturned, for instance, I think it's essential that people understand that the primary targets of these actions are women. Yes, women's rights are human rights. Yes, trans rights are human rights. Yes, gay rights are human rights, and so on. But if you just flatten everything down to just "human rights," it becomes more difficult to actually pinpoint the issues at hand.
This is a topic where I really, truly do understand where people on both sides of it are coming from (those who are actually concerned about erasure and not people who are simply using this as an excuse to attack trans people, at least), and that's why it's so frustrating to see articles like the NYT pieces, which I felt really exaggerated and misled on the scope of the problem. Yes, occasionally a group or an individual will say/do something odd/clunky/off (which I think is part of the bigger issue when it comes to politicians or groups trying to be as inclusive as possible -- which is great and all, very well-meaning, and so on, but often misses the mark).
I guess my point here, which I realize is now sort of veered way off from the actual question you asked, is that I think there are people who don't support abortion rights who see this sort of "They're trying to erase you!" argument as a way to weaken the groups of people fighting for those rights. I think it's in the best interest of those of us who do support abortion rights to understand that we all have to be in this together. I want to be a good ally to women and others who can become pregnant (yes, yes, I know, not all women can become pregnant, obviously), so I sat down to try to bring those NYT articles back to reality.
Thank you, Parker. That's what it seemed to me you were saying, and I am happy I was understanding you correctly. Thank you for this wonderful piece too.
Trans rights are an important topic to me even though I am not trans. I am grateful for your coverage. This, plus your unapologetic use of the word "lie" to describe people say things that are false, ensures that I will be a subscriber for some time to come. Thanks Parker.
Thanks so much for your support, on both the newsletter and also when it comes to trans rights.
Exactly this.
It's always a Gish Gallop, and the fact that it causes stress, anxiety, and pain for trans folks is absolutely a bonus to them.
Trans issues are important to me, a cis man. If someone unsubscribes because they feel you talk about trans issues too much, I think we're all better off without them.
Kind of off-topic, but I can't even imagine the mindset of someone who appreciates your work enough to be a paid subscriber, but then is like "Oh, you talked about trans people too much, peace out". We'd all love for this not to be a topic of discussion, but *gestures broadly*
Oh, no, I totally understood where they were coming from. It's fine, really. I was mostly like, "Oh no, I better put a note here to be like, 'hey, I get that I've been writing a lot about this lately! don't worry, I'll cover more stuff, too!'" than anything else.
I'm still a subscriber, even though I don't use the term "pregnant people".
And I appreciate it!
Although I would use it in a specific case if it applied
Women hating on trans men makes me extra sad. Being born with a uterus comes with enough baggage in and of itself, it's awful to see women calling a trans man a traitor (or variation thereof). I can't articulate it much better than to say reading some of those tweets gave me a visceral reaction of sadness I could physically feel.
I think right now that a lot of people are scared and frustrated. And when scared and frustrated, I think sometimes people lash out. Just yesterday I got in a Twitter argument with someone about trans issues and I was such a a total jerk to him. It took me a few hours to come to terms with the fact that I wasn't even actually angry at this guy, but just really scared about the state of the world right now. The guy I argued with was kind enough to accept my apology, which I'm really thankful for.
Anyway, this is all pretty unrelated to your comment (sorry!), but I'm trying to be mindful of the stress that people are under right now, and with Roe being overturned, it's easy to understand why some people might respond to that outcome and lash out at trans men (and trans women, even though... what?) and some nonbinary people.
Pamela Paul wrote, "Previously a commonly understood term for half the world’s population, the word [woman] had a specific meaning tied to genetics, biology, history, politics and culture. No longer." Ironic that she would say that, as it seems pretty clear that her understanding of the word takes no account of history, politics, or culture, and is tied solely to genetics and biology, and even then only in a limited sense.
I think the most frustrating aspect of her piece was the part where she mentioned something about progressive groups no longer standing up for and advancing women's rights even though that's just such a bizarre and obviously false claim that she didn't back up.
I love everything you write, and especially how you write about trans issues so I will be looking forward to future pieces! I’m not trans but I love someone who is and the more I learn how to speak to these issues, as an ally, the better. Thank you for your clarity and insight.
Hey, thank you!
I'm personally not going to use the terms "pregnant people", "chest feeding", or "menstruator".
Fine if YOU want to, I get your intention and respect that. Just don't force ME to use those terms, unless it is in reference to a VERY specific case or person.
I also refuse to cancel anyone else for not using those terms either. Sorrynotsorry.
All good! I don't think this problem is anywhere near as widespread as it's made out to be. "Chestfeeding" was something that first caused controversy because a British hospital was like, "BTW, if you have any trans men or nonbinary people as patients, be mindful of your words," and then included a list of terms that *some* trans men and nonbinary people with babies might use. Even that hospital was clear that those terms weren't meant to be used in replacement of terms like "breastfeeding," "pregnant woman," etc.
It blew up into a whole thing after that, even though what that hospital did by putting that out in their memo was meant to be accommodating for rare cases. Unfortunately, the internet outrage machine does its thing.
You do you, Fly Girl! We can all get along, I hope!
Yes, we can.
I'm fine with the occasional accomodating terminology. Just not the blanket replacement. I think that does more harm than good TBH.
On the bright side, I reported a heck of a lot TERF accounts on Twitter from all of this.
It’s really kind of pathetic to see so many (mostly, but not exclusively) cis men get so upset when someone else uses slightly different, but more descriptive language. They’ve really ... for lack of a better term.. such snowflakes. (Kind of ironic right?)
Of course I realize that much of this is just fake outrage designed to push a particular agenda against the existence of tans people. But of course as you note there are a large number of people who read headlines and uncritically accept there is a war on words where there is none.
Speaking of snowflakes, I was reading the comments on “another” Substack newsletter that got into the horror that some real estate ads were now referring to the “master bedroom” in a house as the “main bedroom.”
A large number of homes are now bought by single women (apparently without the advice and approval of a man!) So real estate agents, whose primary concern is selling houses and getting rich, have started using more generic and less dated terms (language does evolve). Yet the men who were commenting on this development saw it as an attack on their manhood. Sad.
How does an opinion piece this evidence-free make its way past an editor? Sigh
Hi Parker. I learned of, and subscribed to, your newsletter because of this excellent post. I'm in a big bruhaha with someone I respect and admire related to it so I would like to ask directly:
Does replacing "womens rights" with "human rights" still include trans, non-binary, two-spirit, et al the way folks would like it to? I argue it does not, nor does making this change seem to be what you are saying here. Rather than argue with someone else I'd rather hear it from you. My contention is that using "human rights" still makes marginalized invisible in a way that doing the clunky work of naming them in the conversation doesn't.
Hey! Thanks for the note, Chris.
As I mentioned in the piece and elsewhere, etc., I think that it's important to specifically mention the group that is primarily affected by an issue. In the case of Roe v. Wade being overturned, for instance, I think it's essential that people understand that the primary targets of these actions are women. Yes, women's rights are human rights. Yes, trans rights are human rights. Yes, gay rights are human rights, and so on. But if you just flatten everything down to just "human rights," it becomes more difficult to actually pinpoint the issues at hand.
This is a topic where I really, truly do understand where people on both sides of it are coming from (those who are actually concerned about erasure and not people who are simply using this as an excuse to attack trans people, at least), and that's why it's so frustrating to see articles like the NYT pieces, which I felt really exaggerated and misled on the scope of the problem. Yes, occasionally a group or an individual will say/do something odd/clunky/off (which I think is part of the bigger issue when it comes to politicians or groups trying to be as inclusive as possible -- which is great and all, very well-meaning, and so on, but often misses the mark).
I guess my point here, which I realize is now sort of veered way off from the actual question you asked, is that I think there are people who don't support abortion rights who see this sort of "They're trying to erase you!" argument as a way to weaken the groups of people fighting for those rights. I think it's in the best interest of those of us who do support abortion rights to understand that we all have to be in this together. I want to be a good ally to women and others who can become pregnant (yes, yes, I know, not all women can become pregnant, obviously), so I sat down to try to bring those NYT articles back to reality.
Thank you, Parker. That's what it seemed to me you were saying, and I am happy I was understanding you correctly. Thank you for this wonderful piece too.