Former Conservative Canadian Prime Minister Diefenbaker isn’t around to ask but I feel, if he were consistent, he would oppose the idea that ‘cis-women are cis-women and that trans-women are trans-women’. He’d be on the side of the conventional right now, at least in book-publishing circles in the UK.
Diefenbaker never liked using the terms Aboriginal-Canadians and Black-Canadians, some Canadians with some special concerns, even when he agreed that they did have special concerns !
He’d thunder, on public platforms, “we are ALL Canadians and we should all be treated equally”, sounding exactly like today’s American conservatives in their fevered opposition to BLM.
But words, alone, aren’t enough : people who say “we are all equal” with their mouth too often say “but you and you are less than equal” with the force of their fist.
But I digress.
The main problem is that we submerge the good with the bad when we work hard to reduce categories of distinction in the mistaken belief this is a unquestionable good thing.
We actually always need to hold several categories in our mind, at the one and the same time.
Yes all humans are humans, with equal rights to a happy existence, but some humans - like child humans - sometimes need some additional protections not afforded to adult humans.
Similarly, not all trans women and trans men want to be considered only and always as a woman and a man : they might instead argue that it very much depends, that circumstances alter cases....
Nuanced commentary is dangerous commentary. The giant cuddlefish conversation is always swimming dangerously near-by. It can and does pretend to be a female while alpha cuddlefish are around then when they leave it reverts to its male form engages in some on the sly sexual relationships with the female and reverts back to mimicking a female when the alpha cuddlefish returns. Its a transphobic species I think we should hunt it to extinction before some wise guy uses it as a metaphor or starts wondering if a suit and fake smile is nonverbal and often unconscious deception than what is this about? Some thoughts like cuddlefish should remain beneath the sea I suppose. I'm under strict orders from my wife not to talk about giant cuddlefish. My only point is that people engage in nonverbal deception for their benefit. Fake smile, make-up, suit, it's always nonverbal deception with humans and always for one reason self benefit. I mean a woman's lips aren't red because she wears lipstick they're painted red, the deception nets the woman a benefit in same sex competition. My clothes are nonverbal deception but a biological male saying they're a woman is not? Okay it is though. Thats no commentary on anyone's rights or freedoms but let's get real.
ReplyDelete