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*
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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*
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.
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 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.
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.