Let's start with this. I'm really tired of all the 'What Is A Woman' culture war stuff, since much of it doesn't come with an honest intellectual discussion about the objective facts. But once again, given the ongoing discourse in this area, and the very real effects it might have on the real world, I feel that I have no choice but to keep responding. Today, I want to respond to the short video simply titled 'What Is A Woman', by James Lindsay from New Discourses. I have a certain level of respect for Lindsay, because he at least takes time to go through academic texts to analyze them, even if I don't always agree with his conclusions. So today, I am going to respond to his video with the intellectual rigor I think it deserves.
Part 1: Why the 'What Is A Woman' Culture Warriors are Actually Radical
The example of 'what is a woman' illustrates the problem with reactionary culture war politics, and why it can never be a truly conservative thing. In a tribalist, whatever it takes culture war, even those who claim to 'defend' the status quo will contribute to its destruction in the process. This is because taking a politics driven, 'us vs them' culture war approach inevitably distorts and damages important parts of our cultural inheritance, and such damages could be difficult to repair even long after the culture war is over.
Lindsay claims that attempts to include trans women in the category of 'women' serve to complicate the category of 'women', and hence serves the purposes of queer theory to 'complicate' categories. I agree that queer theory activists are needlessly complicating our understanding of gender, and that is not a good thing. However, what Lindsay fails to acknowledge is that, queer theory activists often have a difficult relationship with 'binary' trans women like myself, because we don't serve to 'complicate' and deconstruct the categories of gender. They often smear those of us campaigning for mainstream trans acceptance with the 'respectability politics' label, because of our supposed conformity with existing norms. This shows that the mainstream form of trans acceptance (e.g. treating a trans woman as a woman for most social purposes, where it is reasonable to do so) does not actually help the queer theory agenda.
On the other hand, the recent culture war approach to the 'what is a woman' question actually complicates the matter, and hence could even ultimately benefit the queer theory agenda. On the surface, the culture war activists are claiming to 'defend' the traditional dictionary definition of woman as 'adult human female'. However, using this definition as a weapon in an ongoing culture war is certainly not in line with traditional practice at all, and certainly 'complicates' the category of woman. While there has always been broad agreement with the understanding of woman to mean 'adult human female', it has not generally been used to draw a rigid line to strictly define who is in the category or not, especially in a heated, culture war context. Doing so effectively makes the formerly universally accepted definition controversial, and makes it a point of constant argument in the face of 'borderline' cases that naturally exist. The attempt at rigid classification also provides plenty of room for postmodernist activists to attack the inconsistencies in its application to various 'borderline' cases, thus justifying their argument that the category is ultimately unstable or invalid. In return, those trying to 'defend' the category will likely come up with increasingly rigid and twisted definitions that defy both science and common sense. This cycle goes on and on, until it all becomes a meaningless war of language. In the name of 'defending' the status quo, the culture war activists are actually radically changing the status quo. They are effectively starting a revolution by stealth.
From a more practical perspective, the reason why this new application of 'adult human female' is radical, is because it actually has the effect of making the common understanding of sex and gender much more rigid, and much less nuanced, with flow on effects to many areas of life. One of the things I'm most concerned about is that this new rigidity has flow on effects on the understanding of intersex people. The new, culture war version of 'adult human female' often comes with additional details like chromosomes or gametes, that serve to justify the rigid exclusion of trans women, and in doing so at least partially erases and makes taboo the reality of intersex people. There is already inadequate understanding of intersex conditions as it stands, which means intersex people often do not get the health care they need. I have a friend who is certain that she is intersex, and I agree with her based on an objective assessment from the knowledge of my formal training in the biological sciences. Yet she has not been able to find a doctor to formally recognize her condition, because it is not one of the intersex conditions listed in medical texts at the moment. I know that there are many people like her out there. Intersex people can experience a range of medical complications throughout life, which is why the current underdiagnosis of intersex conditions is a major problem. Intersex issues are already surrounded by taboo and mystery as it stands. A culture war around 'what is a woman', with one side defending unnaturally rigid definitions, and downplaying the reality of intersex issues, would only make the problem worse. It is not something I think a good person can be OK with in good conscience.
Part 2: Objectively Assessing the Motivations of Queer Theory etc.
In the video, Lindsay explains that the 'woke' consider a woman to be 'anyone who identifies that way, so long as that identification is deemed authentic'. He then points out that the problem with this definition is in who gets to determine if the way a certain individual identifies is authentic or not. He uses the example of a male weightlifter, who identified as a woman for a few minutes and broke the weightlifting record, but was unrecognized by the 'woke'. Hence, Lindsay concludes that the authority to decide which identities are 'authentic' must reside in approved experts. Which ultimately means that one can't answer 'what is a woman' without consulting an approved expert. Lindsay then explains that queer theory, which 'woke' thinking on gender and sexuality is often based on, likes to 'queer' categories by complicating them, so that nobody can adjudicate the facts of life for themselves. As he puts it, "they want to destroy normal people's ability to see and ascertain and discuss and express reality on their own in commonly shared terms". A truly scarily authoritarian implication, if true.
Lindsay's line of reasoning is consistent with a growing narrative that 'woke' ideas are all about taking freedom away from everyday individuals and putting more and more power into the hands of approved experts. As someone who has put some time in to study critical theory and postmodernism, I actually don't agree. Lindsay is correct that queer theory wants to complicate categories where there is no objective need to, and this is one of the reasons I am strongly opposed to queer theory. As I often say, queer theory is bad for trans people because it makes society confused about what being trans is. Therefore, I consider the insertion of queer theory into the trans discourse to be parasitic, i.e. harming 'the host' (the trans community) so that the parasite (queer theory ideology) can grow and reproduce. However, as much as I dislike queer theory, I can still see that it is not about grabbing power for the experts. Instead, its aim is to deconstruct almost everything we know about the world, out of a misguided belief that it is all social constructs that serve the oppressors by holding down the oppressed. I believe that postmodernism and critical theory are harmful because they don't respect objective reality. Assigning motives to the supporters of these ideas that don't objectively exist would be similarly harmful. Two wrongs certainly don't make one right!
Part 3: Destroying Normal People's Ability to Ascertain Reality
The culture warriors' application of 'adult human female' actually leads to what people like Lindsay fear most: the destruction of normal people's ability to ascertain, discuss and express reality on their own, in commonly shared terms. To put it bluntly, normal people don't think of chromosomes or gametes when they interact with others. These things are in the realm of expert knowledge, not everyday life. Most people take a 'if it looks like a duck, if it quacks like a duck' approach to determine gender, which is undeniably the common sense position. Under the 'if it looks like a duck' approach, many people already accept at least some trans women as belonging in the category of 'women', at least in everyday social situations where people are fully clothed. That trans women are genetically male is not even relevant in this most simplistic and most old-school of approaches (which falsifies Lindsay's assertion that including trans women in the category of women necessarily complicates it). On the other hand, the culture war activists are relentlessly attempting to supplant the 'if it looks like a duck' approach, forcibly complicating things by making people consider chromosomes and gametes where they are not even relevant. In doing so, it is destroying normal people's ability to ascertain, discuss and express reality on their own, using commonly shared terms like 'woman' as they see fit.
In applying the 'duck' test, I generally end up seeing trans women as women, in the context of everyday social situations. This is because trans women who have made an effort to present as a woman generally 'look like' women to me, as long as they are fully clothed, even if I can tell that they are trans. Generally speaking, trans women are also clearly more feminine than men, and most trans women behave in a way that would not be out of place compared to biological women. Some trans women are so feminine that it would be weird to think of them as men. Overall, for me at least, it is easier to think of most trans women as women than as men, due to the 'duck' test. Not everyone will apply the 'duck' test the way I do. I can respect that. When observing the world around us, different people might assess things differently, and assessing the gender of others is a natural, subconscious process too. There is no way to change this except through authoritarian enforcement of a 'common standard'. Which, I fear, is what many people on both sides of the trans debate want to do, including the 'what is a woman' culture warriors.
Conclusions
In conclusion, in politicizing the 'What Is A Woman' question, and using it as a culture war weapon, certain anti-trans culture war activists are radically changing the status quo, with harmful effects to science and medicine, especially in regards to intersex issues. I believe this is just as ideological as, and no less misguided than, queer theory's attempt to deconstruct all categories about sex and gender. Moreover, it is relentlessly trying to get people to abandon the most simplistic and old-school way to determine gender, i.e. the 'if it looks like a duck' method. In doing so, it is destroying normal people's ability to ascertain, discuss and express reality on their own, and to use the commonly shared term 'woman' as they see fit. This is nothing short of authoritarian.
Ever since the release of Matt Walsh's film 'What Is A Woman' a few months ago, there has been a lot of discussion about trans issues from the perspective of what is shown in the film, and it has not been good for public understanding and acceptance of trans people. The film takes a 'just asking questions' approach, and highlights the most controversial and weakest arguments for trans rights, so as to portray trans people and trans rights in a very bad light. As I previously said, the film itself is not very scientific, and it does not feature in-depth analyses in biology, evolutionary science, or clinical medicine. However, given how weak the so-called pro-trans arguments presented were, Walsh's side seems to win by default, on the basis of common sense. The fact they mock our side for not being able to answer 'what is a woman' isn't because they have the most scientifically sound answer. Rather, it is because they can demonstrate that some of the answers given by people on our side fly in the face of common sense, and have no basis in any kind of scientific method either. I hate to admit it, but it's true.
Even before 'What Is A Woman', the polls were already showing a substantial backslide in support for trans people in both the US and the UK, and the trend does not look like stopping or reversing any time soon. The effect of a film like 'What Is A Woman' then, would be to further accelerate and solidify the backlash. If things really get to the point of no return, trans people will needlessly suffer for a generation or more. Therefore, we need to try and turn things around, and do so quickly. There is no time to waste.
Some trans activists have argued that the current backlash is inevitable, and eventually their actions will lead to some kind of 'liberation' for all of us. However, nothing is inevitable, nor is there evidence that the current pain will lead to any kind of future utopia. This is basically accelerationist philosophy, which has no factual support in history, and is also inherently against justice and decency. Instead of entertaining unproven fantasies about the future, as trans people living in the here and now, our priority should be to improve trans lives, or at least prevent things from getting worse, in the here and now. To do this, we need to have effective arguments against the onslaught of anti-trans propaganda coming from gender critical activists and right-wing culture warriors alike. There is no substitute for having convincing arguments that are rooted in objective, observable reality.
To develop effective arguments against anti-trans propaganda, and arguments for trans rights reforms that can potentially gain widespread support, we need to be able to think and talk freely. The trans community has effectively been put in an ideological straitjacket by ardent activists, who attempt to silence or 'cancel' every idea that contradicts their supposed philosophy of liberation, which is rooted in postmodern queer theory. The attempted cancelation of several high profile trans people over the years, and their ultimate bowing to the activists' position in some cases, has served to solidify the control of postmodern queer theory over the trans community. Many people might privately disagree with the queer theory program, but they dare not speak up against it in public. As I had explained in the past, the problem with postmodern queer theory is that it is completely detached, and to some extent even in denial of, empirical scientific reality. The Foucauldian view that knowledge is always historically contingent and shaped by power, which lies at the root of queer theory, is basically incompatible with a commitment to objectivity. This is why arguments from an objective, empirical, or biological viewpoint have often been met with hostility from the queer theory activists, and hence made semi-taboo in the trans community. This has ultimately led to the proliferation of non-sensical 'arguments' in the pro-trans discourse, like the ones shown in 'What Is A Woman', as well as a profound inability to answer our critics with facts and sound logic.
This is why I have been publicly challenging queer theory, and the set of ideas it is based on, including postmodernism, Marcuse's pseudo-Freudian ideas, and critical theory more generally. Over the years, I have even extended this project to include related ideas that are not LGBT-specific, like critical race theory, so as to highlight the common faults within these ideologies. However, my arguments have sometimes been quite academic, and some people have pointed out that this is of limited effectiveness in the real world. This is why I have increasingly engaged with real world events in recent months. I have long argued against cancel culture, especially in the trans community, and I will continue to do so. I have also begun regularly responding to anti-trans arguments using facts and logic. Contrary to popular belief among the activists, it is almost always useful to engage your opponents. More debate leads us closer to the objective truth, and should be welcomed.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Moral Libertarian Horizon books, which argue that liberalism is still the most moral and effective value system for the West.
She is also the author of The Trans Case Against Queer Theory.