Yesterday, I saw this tweet by Kelly Cadigan:
Let me get this straight. So an adoptive mother is fine to celebrate Mother’s Day as long as they’re biologically born that way…but not trans women? So in less than 10 years when my boyfriend and I adopt, I’m not just as much of a mom as any other adopting parent? I’m fulfilling that role.
Kelly is a center-right transwoman, who has made a name for herself by vocally advocating against the erasure of the concept of biological sex, the sterilization of kids with gender dysphoria, and the coercion of language by radical trans activists.
While I usually agree with Kelly's political takes, this tweet surprised me. If Kelly is fighting against the erasure of women and biological sex, why would she ask to be called a "mother, " a biological term?
This post drew a lot of comments from both sides of the debate. On the political right, women argued that Kelly should not celebrate Mother's Day because it "erases women" and was "offensive" to claim to be a mother. Also, that Kelly couldn't be a mother by definition because she is not female.
The counterargument from the political left was that Kelly would "socially" be seen as a mother and fulfill the nurturing role of one, so calling her a "mother" would be the correct term. In addition, Kelly calling herself a mother does nothing to "erase women," so no one should be offended by what words she uses.
Which of these arguments is correct?
Let's start by clarifying that people can celebrate whatever holidays they want. I am not offended by what holidays people celebrate or what they call themselves in their homes. However, it is essential to note that, by definition, Kelly nor any transwoman can be a "mother," even if they decide to celebrate Mother's Day or call themselves a "mother."
A mother is a female parent. Even adoptive mothers who do not biologically have children are female parents.
According to the political left's argument that a mother is a feminine and nurturing person, a feminine gay man who adopts a child would be a mother and not a father. In addition, a masculine woman who adopts a child would be a father because that would be the "role" she plays.
But that is almost certainly not what they are arguing.
They mean that "mother" should be redefined to include males who fit into certain connotations associated with the word mother. However, while Kelly may be feminine and nurturing, Kelly is male and, therefore, can be a "parent" or a "father" but not a mother.
When another Twitter user made this argument, Kelly claimed it was prejudice against trans people.
And this ladies and gentlemen is pure hypocrisy! Biological women who adopt can be considered mothers…but not trans women? It’s prejudice, straight up.
You might have noticed that throughout this article, I used Kelly's preferred pronouns of she/her and called her a "transwoman" instead of a man.
I know that Kelly both struggles with dysphoria and acknowledges the existence of biological sex. So I feel ok with compromising in this way.
There is a mutual understanding that I am not communicating that she is female or a woman by calling her these things. The definition of "transwoman" is a male with gender dysphoria that chooses to live life presenting as a woman to treat the symptoms of her condition. By calling her this, I am not destroying the concept of a woman or misusing the term.
However, there are some things I will not compromise on with anyone. I will not call a male a "woman," a "female," or a "mother," as those things are concepts that need to be kept intact for clear thinking and understanding of the world around us.
This stance does not make me prejudiced. I do not see Kelly as less than myself. I believe she could be a great parent one day. I only want to uphold the truth. It's what I have dedicated my entire career to doing.
However, swapping clear definitions of words with soft connotations because of people's feelings is how we got into the problem of erasing biology in the first place.
First, some males wanted to be called "transwomen," and people agreed out of fear of being labeled "prejudiced."
Then, some transwomen wanted to be called "women," and people agreed out of fear of being labeled "prejudiced."
Then some transwomen wanted to be called "females," and people agreed out of being labeled "prejudiced."
Then some trans activists called for the abolition of the concept of sex entirely, and people agreed out of being labeled as "prejudiced."
See where this leads us?
Everyone must recognize the importance of not using anyone's feelings or offense to determine language use. People cannot keep blindly agreeing to compromise on language while erasing objective concepts and helpful definitions of words. If they continue to do so, they will lose their grip on reality.
I hope that Kelly and other transgender people realize that and fight with those of us who can see the danger of this practice rather than against us.
I totally agree that it is important to preserve accurate language for us humans to describe ourselves in terms of sexuality and gender. Abolishing the concept of sex is more than infuriating and dangerous, it's truly a sad sorry state of affairs.
Your takes on the Gaza/Palestine issue are embarrassing.
I haven't seen *anything* besides a surface level attempt to claim the good vs evil ground.
You parrot blatant propaganda from centralized governments and don't allow any space for nuance/grey in a complex world that isn't black and white.
Sad, sad stuff.