It’s hard to keep up with what we’re allowed to think, say, and do. What’s a woman? If we are supposed to believe all women, but sex and gender are merely social constructs, do we have to believe everyone? If women have rights, why do unborn women not? If women are oppressed, why do male athletes keep turning into them? If the patriarchy is real and evil, why do women want to join it? If you’re a willing participant in the patriarchy, as opposed to someone who just happened into it, does that make you worse? If you’re a transgender male, do you hate yourself for being in the patriarchy? If the left can’t define women, then how do they know they are one? Or that someone else is one, or not one? How do we even discuss a thing we can’t name or define?
Nothing makes sense!
The month of March therefore turns into a conundrum. Feminism has played itself out, and with its inclusion of transgenderism, accelerated its open extinction. When feminism no longer serves to promote or defend females, that is the inevitable result.
Because I hate myself, presumably, I used the ol’ Google to investigate how the diametrically opposed groups of feminism and transgenderism aproached celebrating women’s history. It’s hard to say what qualifies as a successful mission here, but in terms of both finding some amazing articles and hating myself even more, this query did not disappoint.
I think this headline summarizes the current state of affairs: “Why ‘Womxn’ is a Harmful Term to Trans and Non-Binary Femmes.” My goodness, I don’t even know what half of those words mean.
The whole article is a trainwreck of emotional and intellectual stability, but it offers some pretty straightforward history on the prospering variation on using the letter “x” in spellings. This is the crux of the matter, and where radical feminism crashes headfirst into the more vocal, more militant, and more inmsane transgender movment. (I can’t read the word “crux” now without thinking I’ve accepted femme-normative language – ahh!). The author notes:
The term “womxn” with an “x” started showing up in the early 1970’s in feminist circles but gained immense traction amongst intersectional feminists for its “inclusivity” back around 2010. The zeitgeist at that time included using terms like “womxn” to reject “men” and “smash the patriarchy.”
Again, I don’t know what most of that means. In my own words, my takeaway is that the “x” smashes the patriarchy because it removes the “a” and spelling of “man” from “woman.” Good job, everyone. I suppose an important question to ask is how is life better for women who adopt that spelling. Are they happier? Are they better adjusted? Working in Corporatopia and aborting babies by the millions doesn’t seem to have made women happier, so I question whether or not a respelling of an ancient word would do the trick, but maybe that’s just me. In 2017, I watched countless pussy hats bitching and moaning about goodness knows what, so far be it from me to assess the improvement of womanhood. Err, I mean, womxnhood. Factually, women’s lives have improved, but their mental and emotional state has not.
So, women adopt an “x” in the spelling of woman. As this is happening, the transgender movement slowly watches feminism give way to gay rights, and says to itself that the time to strike is now. Suddenly, “x” meant undefined sex (doesn’t every word with an “x” look made up now?) on birth certificates and because mentally and scientifically confused people wanted to be a full-flegded member of the oppsite sex, settling on playful spelllings felt like being cheated out of ther experience. I can hear them yelling now: “I didn’t cut off my penis to not spell it “woman” you crazy TERF!”
This lead me back to the article, which you could say sheds light on this very confusing topic. Or makes it more confusing. I’ll let you decide how you feel after reading this gobbledygook:
“Womxn is not a synonym for “non-men,” it’s a synonym for historical transmisogyny. What I mean is that adding “x” to any word does not always make it more inclusive; context is key. In this case, adding “x” to the term “womxn” reveals a transphobic history of cisgender womens’ gatekeeping of womanhood from trans and nonbinary femmes, even though cis women predominately appropriate transfeminine culture and call it womanhood for themselves (sigh).”
I bet strong, independent, powerful first-wave feminists didn’t know they were stealing trans thunder in the 1970s!
“Whether it’s makeup, fashion, or even language, cis women have a history of appropriating from trans women and transfeminine people while also seeing us as a threat to the very system we designed for them. An example of this is when cisgender folks casually say “yas queen” or “slay sis” or do not properly cite transfeminine folks for their stellar contouring skills that cis people themselves use and market. What’s even more ironic is that March begins with Women’s History Month and International Women’s Day (March 8th) and ends with Trans Day of Visibility. It’s almost too perfect to not recognize how closely connected and interwoven transmisogyny is inside cis women’s movement spaces (i.e., feminism).”
Let me get this straight: Women appropriate from transgender women because…how exactly? Women do womanly things and it detracts from the trans community? I am so confused, and I am not even saying that to be mean or snarky. I literally don’t know what that last paragraph said.
“Cis women’s feminism has always waged a war on women, especially transgender women and transfeminine people. No matter how “intersectional” it is, cis women’s feminism can be summed up in the following statement: it’s about cis women inviting Black and brown transfeminine people to a table that Black and brown transfeminine people had originally built themselves. That’s what a term like “womxn” evokes, but in an even more sinister way. Not only does the term “womxn” serve as that metaphorical table cis women sit at and invite trans and nonbinary people to, a table that was again originally built by trans folks ourselves, but its a term with coercive power to lump trans and nonbinary people into a category without our consent. Hence whether it’s “womanhood” or “womxnhood” it always cis women at the table and transfeminine folks on the menu.
My only complaint here is that they she spells the word “folks” wrong. It’s “folx.” What a bigot.
The term “womxn” is also rooted in transphobic/terf-rhetoric (trans-exclusionary radical feminism) to refer to a category of women “without” men, and to create a whole new category outside of “womanhood” for folks who are “women-identifying,” to feel “included.” Firstly, as a trans woman, I’m not “woman-identifying,” I am a woman period. Secondly, the way inclusion functions is through its exclusionary force from something else. It’s not inclusion when cis women insist on using a term like “womxn” to essentially force transfeminine people, historically excluded from “womanhood” by cis women, into another box that essentially poses “no threat” for cis women and their womanhood.”
I’ll be honest, I stopped reading. I couldn’t try making sense of it anymore.
Happy Women’s Month.
Happy Womxn’s Month.
This story syndicated with permission from The Blue State Conservative