Language and the lie of “erasure”

I was thinking the other day about a class I taught some years ago, in which, as part of the curriculum, I was to cover Aristotle’s Nichomean Ethics. Part of Aristotle’s aim, in this text, is to provide a formula for how to “live the best life” (a rather arrogant endeavor, if you ask me), and so I started teaching the text by asking my students, freshmen, Millenials, what it meant to “live a good life”: What does a good life look like? What does a good life entail? How can we define this?

My students were, as so many of their generation, reticent to answer any of these questions, for to do so would be to take a position and possibly “invalidate” the perspective of another classmate. Each pupil had been raised in a culture of such impossible relativism that each believed to take a stance, to offer forth a perspective, a theory, was to ERASE the stances or theories or perspectives of classmates who might disagree.

In order to provoke them, to get them to say something, to say anything, I asked, “If someone chose to live their life in a dark basement, pissing in a bucket, eating Cheetos and watching pornography until the day they died, would that constitute a ‘good life’?”

Again, they were reluctant to answer, but finally a few brave souls chimed in with responses like, “If they enjoyed doing that, then I guess it’s a good life.” And, “I can’t judge. I wouldn’t want to live that way, but if they wanted to live like that, who am I to say?”

I pressed them further still, “But is that a good way to spend one’s brief tenure on the earth?”

Again, they could not answer. Everything is subjective, they argued.

I was younger then, and my exposure to their generation had been limited. I left class that day feeling a bit sad. Sure, “live and let live” is a fine and noble adage. And okay, so they couldn’t form convictions around an unlikely hypothetical scenario, but what does it mean for us a society when we are afraid to hold a conviction, to take a position, because we have come to believe that to articulate an informed perspective is to ERASE the perspective of someone who might disagree?

Indeed, among the trans/queer lot, a common refrain when someone (usually a woman, usually a feminist) disagrees with gender-worship dogma, is that she is “erasing” the identity of trans/queer people, or that she is “denying the existence” of trans/queer people, or, at its most hyperbolic, “you don’t want trans/queer people to exist.” And so it follows that if we believe the imperative that language has the capacity to literally eradicate people then dissent, of course, will come to be seen as dangerous. And when we deem the language of dissent, rational critique and disagreement, as “life threatening” then we open the door for verbal opposition to be met with violent opposition; we invite barbarism.

To disagree with another human being is not an attempt at “erasure” nor is it denial of the other person’s existence. Nor is ideological, philosophical conflict – when manifest in language alone – violence. (And yes, I realize that when writ into law, language can have a sort of “erasing” impact on groups of people, but that’s not what I’m talking about. I am talking about public discourse in what is left – if anything – of the “marketplace of ideas.”)

Increasingly, we live in a world of “you may say” and “you may not say.” The arbiters of what may be said and what may not be said are always the same people — extremist men, whether they are extremist for religion or gender, it matters not. And whatever methods employed by the extremists, whether they take to doxxing lesbians on the internet or, tragically, senselessly, take guns to a satirical newspaper office in Paris, the motivation is always the same – control of society and its commodities: ideas, industry, land, language, women.

What I say on this blog is deeply unpopular. I know this because I am of the world. I know this because I see the comments people offer. Nevertheless, in expressing my perspective – however “off trend” it may be – I am not inflicting violence on anyone, nor am I invalidating individuals lived realities. My ability to exercise free speech, despite what males (even those who feel like women) will have you believe, does not ERASE anyone.

But if we’re going to talk about erasure, let’s talk for a moment about the lesbian community which has been positively decimated by gender-extremism, an ideology that insists female is merely a feeling, that women-only spaces are bigoted, and that gender non-conforming women are really “trans men.” Let’s talk about the disappearance of lesbian spaces – bars, bookstores, publications. Let’s talk about how formerly lesbian sites, like Autostraddle, have become forums for males to deride lesbians who wish to date other lesbians.

If we’re going to talk about the damage language alone can inflict, let’s talk about the crazy-making gender-speak that forbids women from recognizing that penis is male, that insists we not acknowledge shared female experience, that rebrands feminism as a porn-positive, men-centric movement that means “whatever anyone says it means.”

When we embrace absolute subjectivity – i.e. no one must hold a conviction for fear it will hurt feelings/”erase” someone, when we equate the language of dissent with violence, critical thinking becomes impossible as we defer, mutely, to the language authorities (males).

Last week, in the wake of the Ohio teenager’s death, exploited and shamefully glorified by so many on the left, I read a few Twitter feeds that touched upon the tragedy. One Tweet, from a trans activist accused of harassing the teen’s parents, read, “I don’t hate women. I am a woman.”

The reason this tweet stood out so singularly to me is that it illustrated a few things about where we are as a culture. 1) Male says he’s woman, so he’s a woman (language means what males say it means) 2) We believe that women are incapable of hating women because man who identifies as woman says so. (Zero critical thinking involved here.)

I want to speak, for a moment, to the latter observation, because I encounter this a lot in conversations about trans/queer politics – “how can gender theory be misogynist if so many women are on board with it?” The thing is, women can be misogynists. Women can hate women – indeed they often do. One of the most effective ways to uphold patriarchy is to see to it that women hate women, and that women hate themselves. Calling yourself a woman or actually being a woman does not free you from misogynist tendencies – whether you are female or a male who identifies as female, you have been steeped in woman-hating since birth, you can pretend you are free of it, but you cannot, simply by virtue of being woman or “feeling like a woman” absolve yourself of it. And trans/queer theory is not “pro-woman” simply because many women support it. Women have always embraced male-championed causes, male made theories, usually at our own expense. We often, as women, participate in our own erasure.

For example, this week, Autostraddle published this really revoltingly patronizing piece about Gender Studies – to educate their lady readers, I guess. The article was the same shit we’ve seen ad nauseum from so-called “lesbian” publications: “we’re all special unicorns, blah, blah, blah, some men are ladies, blah, some ladies are men, blah.” Boring. Over it. But since this is a post about the notion of “erasure” and “thought policing,” I wanted to point out a couple of excerpts from the article – which was, in fact, written by a female:

Sex is based on the body, but biology is a branch of science and science is also a social construct and really what I’m saying is that your sex is essentially a label a very educated person slapped on you at birth using as many contextual clues as they could garner at the time about your DNA. Sex is not immutable or unchangeable or somehow “intrinsically” defined by our bodies; it’s more that science and medicine have put words in place to define sex and thrust it upon us – and that they’re often inadequate at capturing the full spectrum of diversity swimming around in the big ol’ sea . . .

 This is the kind of bullshit, circuitous, narcissist-logic, swamp of nothingness fuckery being sold to women on behalf of males who would prefer we not acknowledge reality. The attempt to convince women – or anyone for that matter – that science is a “construct,” in the same way gender is a “construct,” in a world where most are bat-shit insane idiots because we are no longer allowed to express a rational thought,  is dangerous. And how is this any different than the crazy people who run around denying evolution? Or climate change deniers? The incentive for Creationists to deny evolution, and for those who deny climate change is the same as the incentive for the trans/queer/gender worship lot who claim science is merely a construct: the scientific principles inconvenience them, hurt their feels.

“But if Jesus didn’t live with dinosaurs then . . . then . . . then FUCK YOU EVOLUTION ISN’T REAL!”

“But if my gas chugging SUV that I really, really like is bad for the environment then . . . then . . . then FUCK YOU CLIMATE CHANGE ISN’T REAL!”

“But if my penis isn’t part of female anatomy and I really, really would like to be a girl then . . . then . . . then FUCK YOU BIOLOGY IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT!”

Gender Studies is anti-intellectualism dressed up in academese for the benefit of males. Period.

And yes, science and medicine have put “words in place” to define things. Scientists and doctors use words particular to their disciplines, they have language that means specific things like “molecule” and “cancer” and “female” and thank fucking god for that. A doctor’s job is not to acknowledge every special nuance of your unicorn self. A scientist’s job is not to placate your fragile feelings.

Reflected in the Autostraddle is also the way in which trans/queer/gender-speak has reframed true feminism – now considered “radical” – to be “trans-exclusionary” (i.e. does not prioritize males/make religion of gender). Radical Feminists – referred to in the modern gestalt by the pejorative “TERF” – are those who are concerned with the welfare of women and girls, who are interested in the liberation of women, the end of gender, and the dismantling of patriarchy. Trans/queer/gender studies speak has appropriated the word so that it means, “don’t be mean to males”; trans/queer/gender studies has taken the tools of the oppressor – gender roles, pornography, prostitution and called them “empowering.” Trans/queer/gender studies folk work tirelessly to ensure women cannot speak truthfully about their lived realities, for fear it might alienate males.

How revolutionary!

From the Autostraddle article:

[Constructivism] has been used – or, should I say, misused – in order to invalidate trans experiences. TERFs (Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminists) have wielded constructivism theory in order to say that all gender – and thus, the transgender experience – isn’t real.

 This is laughable hyperbole.

 Radical Feminists, according to this writer, according to most contemporary leftists, are villainous women who have made it their mission to drive a group of people into extinction. Radical Feminists, by virtue of their very existence, obliterate the lived reality of others. This is a silencing technique: if you disagree, then you are erasing me. If you disagree with me, then I no longer exist.


If you need an entire department in a university to assure you that you can dress however you want, be known by whatever name you prefer, fuck whomever you like then okay. Fine.

If you need new words to define how you “present,” or who you want to sleep with, great. Invent the words.

If, in order to be happy, you need to take synthetic hormones and have elective surgeries. Fine. Rock on with your bad self.

But let’s be honest – women knowing penis is male is not violence. Radical Feminists do not “erase” the lives of males. Female is a biological reality, and not a “hunch.” Gender is an invention. Rational debate and dissent is not “hate speech.” Because an opinion or perspective may inconvenience us, or hurt our feelings, as individuals, as groups of people, does not mean said opinion/perspective is inherently “evil.”

As women, especially, we need to speak up, unapologetically. We need to keep our critical thinking skills sharp, we must refuse to accept the mass belligerence of gender/queer/trans theory as gospel, we need to know our convictions, and to be comfortable with our right to dissent. If we become too complacent, if we allow males to continue to redefine language (and with it, our reality), if we allow people to tell us that sane, founded disagreement is “hate speech,” or if we allow ourselves to believe that our perspectives, rooted in lived experience, are forms of violence, then we are, in fact, at risk of erasure. And our erasure will not be caused by language itself, but by our own inability to recognize that the language is being used against us.

28 thoughts on “Language and the lie of “erasure”

  1. It is really disturbing that an important conversation about the cultural subjectivities of science and scientific methods has been co-opted by these doodz to declare that easily observable facts about reality aren’t real because feelings. Why discuss problems like racism in scientific research when we could be browbeating young lesbians into touching dicks?!!

  2. the problem is for many of these trans people – fundamentally insecure people who desperate want to escape who their reality – is their identity is all they have, and a denial of their identity might as well be denying they exist:
    “You are arguing in order to have the pleasure of triumphing over me. At best you win an argument. At worst you lose an argument. I am arguing in order to preserve my existence” (Laing:1969;p43)

    1. Yep – look at any “trans” activist’s page and what do you see? Just screed after screed about trans women being oppressed. Nothing whatsoever about actual women or how they may be feeling, just “trans” stuff and screeching, usually about how hateful actual women are.
      I used to be an “anti-feminist” and once used the fact a candidate for “women’s officer” at my university said women-only spaces should be women-only against her, saying she was “cissexist”. I was outright just using it as a stick to beat her with. In the last couple of years I’ve been reading radfem blogs from time to time and find myself completely agreeing, especially as women are getting treated worse and worse as a result of “intersectionality” in feminism.
      We’re not even allowed to criticise the fact “big booties” are being pushed as women’s worth now, that you are only allowed to appear in public if you have one (a rapper saying he is starting a fund for Taylor Swift to get “butt implants” for example), because this is apparently racist. Putting other women down is apparently how to be a “good feminist” now, in this crazy upside down culture. I can’t stand it.

    2. Pity that “identity” is bound up in the abuse of women. For some people, their identity as white people is all they have. Tough titty. Their identity can go jump.

  3. Augustus Carmichael- Your words continue to be cool water in the desert. Shade in a thousand miles of sun. I don’t read the bible much, in fact its more like NEVER-(tip o the hat to Laura Love) but I am beginning to understand the moral to the story behind the Tower of Babel.. or should that be ‘babble”. Another EXCELLENT critique. Many thanks

      1. Thank you very much! Your blog is so good that I frequently have writerly envy when I read it. Not that that stops me from reading, and thinking, and then reading more.

  4. You have no idea how much I needed to see this just now….my teenage son came out to me as a transwomyn a couple of weeks ago. He was raised in a radical feminist home and thus, was both encouraged to freely be himself regardless of gender policing of our culture *and taught to think critically about all other matters of our sick culture (racism, the environment, capitalism, homophobia, etc…). Now, I live with a narcissistic monster (well beyond the usual narcissism of teens) who is taking all his language and other cues from the transcult. Which means that his misogyny is fully rampant and both his logic and basic compassion–both of which were previously notable in him– have utterly left the building.

    In any event, in such a deeply turbulent time for me, your words are a healing balm, and I thank you.

    1. I’m so sorry to hear this, too, Harvestqueen.

      The transcult does prey on young people; it’s precisely their typical youthful narcissism (much worse in boys, who learn male supremacy, no matter how they are raised or who raises them) that the cult exploits. It tells him that if he can’t have access to every single person, place and thing — any hateful, stupid and illogical thing a boy desires — he is “oppressed.”

      There is still a reason to have hope, I think — at least in individual situations such as yours. You say, ” … both his logic and basic compassion–both of which were previously notable in him– have utterly left the building.” If your son had these human basics down at one time, if the basic structures are already there, these compassionate qualities and critical faculties might come back to him. Perhaps after a few hard knocks from the sick community he’s discovered?

      Meanwhile, no woman should be forced to live with a monster, or be responsible for fixing him. How awful for you and all the other women who have endured living with men who insist they are women. There are quite a few blogs out there by women who have dealt with this in their own homes/relationships. You’re definitely not alone.

  5. Reblogged this on Thou wouldst still be adored and commented:
    “The attempt to convince women – or anyone for that matter – that science is a “construct,” in the same way gender is a “construct,” in a world where most are bat-shit insane idiots because we are no longer allowed to express a rational thought, is dangerous. And how is this any different than the crazy people who run around denying evolution? Or climate change deniers? The incentive for Creationists to deny evolution, and for those who deny climate change is the same as the incentive for the trans/queer/gender worship lot who claim science is merely a construct: the scientific principles inconvenience them, hurt their feels.”

  6. Thank you for writing this. It really saddens me to see so many young women, many of whom honestly think they are being part of a radical or at least socially-just movement, are actually participating in their own and other women’s annihilation. I mean, it’s not new, it’s very, very old, for women to do this, but it seems like this latest twist is extra cruel, when many of these women have ended up in those spaces already seeking some kind of respite from other bad experiences they’ve had in mainstream spaces, or out of a genuine desire to make the world better somehow, and then they just get indoctrinated into all these horrendous ideologies.

  7. Occam’s Razor applies. If, when I read the trans’ view that calls me ?-ist simply for being a butch lesbian, and never any sort of man, I can’t even figure out what the hell their logic is, then that is NOT the simplest explanation. The simplest explanation is that there is no ?-ism in the process of my being at home in my own identity. It has nothing to do with them. Why would it? I don’t go telling them what they think or why they want to be trans, or whether or not trans is valid for them–it’s none of my business. I take people as they wish to be taken.

    What in the hell is the point of using convoluted logic to try to re-define things like biological sex? There is NO need to do that; there are genetic variations in biological sex, and there are physiological variations, and these things do not make biological sex disappear. You can be someone with an XY genetic code and a penis; or XY and a female or intersex because of hormones in the womb; you can be XX and affected by hormones in the womb to be more muscular and have secondary sex characteristics typically associated with XY; these are biological conditions as completely well-defined by science as the chemical structure of salt or bleach. You don’t change the chemical structure of salt by calling it something else, nor deny that it has a chemical structure–and why would you?

    They’ve split off the word gender and used it to express the OTHER side of the equation–the internal identity, composed of behavior and outward appearance and preferences and ways of thinking–so much more complicated and certainly subject to variations beyond the constraints of biology. But that doesn’t change the XY versus XX (or XXY, or XXXY) and the presence of a penis as being features of a biological male. And it doesn’t mean that when I say my XX body and my love of womyn makes me a lesbian, that they can just dismiss the XX and say my preference for sturdy clothing and physical activity makes me a man in a body that isn’t male.

    Occam’s Razor: if that shit just sounds totally whacked, it is.

  8. Biological sex is so fucking basic. Pun intended. People try to complicate it because in the age of $100 DNA tests we’re afraid to chromosome-map every baby who comes along. We don’t have to go by external genitalia anymore. But we do, just like we put biological strangers on babies’ birth certificates because Mommy was married to Stranger when we were born. Both practices need to die an unpleasant death.

    But let me explain the biological sex thing.

    Sexual reproduction is the putting-together of two cells with half the organism’s usual number of chromosomes each for the purposes of creating a new organism. One reason we have sexual reproduction is it hurts like hell to split yourself in two if you’re an adult multicellular organism. Ow. The other reason is the same reason we shuffle the cards before we begin a game–the maximizing of genetic diversity by way of genetic shuffling, something you can’t get just splitting an organism in two.

    Note I said two cells. You need two cells to make a human baby because humans reproduce sexually because it would hurt to just split ourselves in two. Ow.

    A normal human cell has 46 chromosomes, so the sex cells have to have 23 each. And one has to insert its 23 into the other, so they have to be two different *kinds* of sex cells. Sperm and ovum.

    The sex organs are adapted for either accepting sex cells or injecting sex cells. So we need two biological sexes. In this case male and female. A human organism of the male sex has at least one Y chromosome: one Y in biologically typical males, more than one Y in the biologically atypical. If you don’t have a Y chromosome, you’re female. Bang. Simple.

    Every other method we use to “discern” physical sex is just a guess, given that not every human body IS biologically typical and properly functional to help create a new organism. That’s why we have the intersexed category at all. But face it, a biological female who gets herself a penis built is never going to produce anything but egg cells, if she even still has her ovaries. (Note to any FTMs reading this: Bad things can happen if you keep your ovaries and you’re on T. Just saying.) She hasn’t got the DNA to tell her how to make sperm cells. Likewise for a male with AIS, which is often upheld as an example of “intersex”–He’s never going to have the DNA to tell him how to make eggs. He’s got testes, and they behave like testes, except his body can’t respond to the hormones.

    Saying someone isn’t male because he’s not responding to the hormones or that she’s not female becuase she got a penis sewed on is like saying a blind person doesn’t really have eyes since she can’t use them to see.

    Makes no sense whatsoever. They’re just atypical people, they haven’t become a whole new category.

    So… yeah. We already run a bunch of genetic tests on babies to make sure they’re not going to die in their first year of life or something. We already chromosome-map SOME fetuses in utero when we’re checking for Down syndrome. I don’t see why we don’t just go ahead and chromosome-map EVERYONE, and then give them that information when they’re old enough to use it in case their physical sex isn’t obvious to them before then.

    That would at least take care of the whole “intersex” issue. I wish I could say what to do about the whole “trans” issue. It’d be a nice start if they learned the difference between sex and gender because as you’ve pointed out, they’ve decided sex is a construct and gender is biological. Delusions are powerful… what can I say. Meanwhile I wish them luck explaining how it takes two cells to make a baby but we somehow don’t have any sexes. Are babies imaginary too?

  9. I don’t know who you are, but you’ve said everything I’ve been terrified to say for years now. I’m too much of a coward to fight — I’m a little afraid to even comment here — but I thank you for doing so on my behalf.

  10. You are opening my eyes to a realm of ideas I hadn’t considered, or even knew existed. Thank you for that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s