A matter of simple semantics
Hilarity on Twitter today, from a familiar source.
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins 5 hours ago
Is trans woman a woman? Purely semantic. If you define by chromosomes, no. If by self-identification, yes. I call her “she” out of courtesy.
Ah you know that’s not going to go well. Not good enough. You’re not allowed to have a “no” anywhere. You’re not allowed to have an “if” anywhere. You’re not allowed to make distinctions.
And then his unfailing clumsiness – to put it politely – makes it all the worse. “Out of courtesy” might as well be “to humor” her.
So, of course, the next tweet was the inevitable
Richard Dawkins @RichardDawkins 5 hours ago
@partimetroll Why? What could anyone possibly object to in my tweet? Please tell. I’m sincerely curious.
And on they went:
@RedKaye1 How can you be so wantonly stupid as to suggest that I would suggest such a thing?
@Reverend_Banjo How could that possibly piss anyone off? I’m simply trying to clarify a matter of simple semantics.
@hemantmehta I don’t understand. What’s your problem?
@GenericGooner I am on their side. What makes you think I am not? Do you deny what I said about chromosomes? It’s a matter of simple fact.
@bcaton2 Again that would depend on semantic definition. Do you choose to define by brain or rest of body? Matter of semantic choice.
@TheGayChrist By your definition, which it is your privilege to adopt. I adopt it too for all purposes that matter.
Now I’m getting hate because I stated a wish to be courteous. It means “polite”, “respectful”, “considerate of people’s feelings.” Terrible!
@Miss_Violet2014 Why? You obviously agree that they have Y chromosomes. So IF somebody were to define “woman” as XX . . . that’s all I said
@thebrainofchris English is my native language. I speak and write it competently. The implication you suggest is parsecs from my intention.
Jan Morris’s book, Conundrum, is a beautifully written account of what it’s like to feel you’re a woman trapped in a man’s body.
It’s absurd to use the word “really” to criticise trans people. “Really” means nothing, since the definition is semantic. That was my point.
@HPluckrose Yes, but I didn’t say that. I said IF you define “woman” by chromosomes you’ll get one answer. I didn’t say I did, did I?
Well, who would have believed “courtesy” was a dirty word? Never mind, I intend to continue to be courteous. Sorry if that gives offence.
@VincentGrey1 Perhaps you’re not accustomed to thinking logically and clearly? It takes practice.
@BrookeTLarson OK, that’s fine. I only said IF you define “woman” by chromosomes. I never said I did. Did I? No I didn’t.
It will be in the Guardian and the Independent within hours.
Who isnt allowed a no ? Its that people can draw conclusions from that No or argue against it.
Should abortion be legal ? How about third trimester ? How about in case of rape? How about if the spouse disagrees ?- You have definitive answers for all of that and you have an opinion of people who will refuse to answer that question definitively and who use “if” or have “distinctions”.
And yet he still hasn’t learned that he’s not automatically an expert on every single thing.
@Deepak:
I think Ophelia is saying that people who ask certain types of question about trans issues are sure to encounter a shitstorm and be judged according to the very criteria they were questioning in the first place. If you don’t publicly accept a set of often contradictory things from an ever-changing cloud, you’re automatically a transphobe.
Dawkins has just encountered some of this, but I doubt he recognises it. I expect he’ll shrug off his attackers as more people who are stupid enough to disagree with him.
Oh dear: when a tone-deaf Dawkins comes to the rescue of
Dr Greeranyone, it’s not going to turn out well for either.I’m not a gynaecologist, nor a geneticist, nor an insurance actuary, so it makes no difference to me if someone is technically “born” woman or “trans” woman. Likewise anything non-binary.
Yes, I’ll admit that I play the guessing game inside my head (sorry, can’t help it), but I’m not going to say it out loud. I’m certainly not going “to do a Dawkins” and make it clear that I’m addressing someone with preferred pronouns ‘as a courtesy’, thereby immediately removing any shred of courtesy or respect for that person.
I do think that Greer was wrong to make a stand on an issue which she claimed was not her issue; I do think that Greer was wrong to make a point that she drew a difference between “born”/”trans” (as far as I know, she’s not a gynaecologist either). She was way out of line even venturing any psycho-analysis of Caitlyn Jenner.
With all of that said – she’s still a feminist. Better than I’ll ever be. Anyone
joining the mob to burn her as a witchbrand her as a rad-fem and get her permanently no-platformed is just playing into the hands of anti-feminists. And witch-burners.Dawkins seems to have never caught on to the fact that the primary purpose of Twitter is to propagate emotional outbursts amongst the easily excited.
@Jib Halyard:
Really? He seems to have taken to that like a duck to water.
@latsot
Yes, really. The Dawkin utterances that have generated such indignant shriekfests since he discovered the medium appear pretty damned innocuous to the untrained eye.
@Jib:
Perhaps I should have made my irony tags more explicit. My point was that pretty much everything Dawkins posts on Twitter seems like an emotional outburst by the easily excited, for the easily excited.
@latsot
No doubt. Im merely pointing out that the same is said of feminists and feminists causes.
Is this for real?
I mean… is Dawkins really not able to predict the effects of such a tweet? “Pretty damned innocuous to the untrained eye” – ha ha, maybe, but even I’m not that untrained, and this means something! Can Dawkins, of all people, be that naive? Or perhaps [shy incredulity] he is doing this on purpose?
Seriously asking. I’m lost and I don’t know what to think. (No worries, it’s my normal state of mind.)
Deepak @ 9 – but why are you pointing that out? Do you think I don’t know that?
(Damn, now I sound like Dawkins.)
Yes, I think he is doing “this” on purpose. “This” being stating his (I assume) honest opinion on a topic. That it happens to be a hot-button topic for certain people does not seem to bother him in the least. Nor should it. Not so much naivete as simply not giving a damn, by all appearances.
@Ophelia
You’ve never made a statement of that sort about feminists.
How do you know?
@Deepak:
I still don’t see your point. So what if it’s also said about other things? Why not say it’s also said about, for instance, various medical issues?
I hope you’ll understand if I judge your concern to be slightly less than sincere.
@Jib:
Perhaps not, but he inevitably goes on to wring his hands about how the people disagreeing with him are regrettably stupid. If we’re talking about what he “should” do, perhaps we could argue that he should learn about why he’s being told off; that he should educate himself; that there might be some truth to the accusations that since he’s set himself up as a thinky thought leader, he should shoulder some of the responsibility that would entail. He’s spent his whole life educating himself and others, but seems to have stopped now, for some reason.
Apparently Dawkins is due to be on BBC Breakfast in the next hour or so. Let’s see if he can guffaw his way through an interview without pleading for anyone to shut up. Based on his recent form, I rather doubt it.
@Ophelia:
Nah. “Don’t you know who I am???!??” would sound more like Dawkins. Or saying “do you think I don’t know that?” regarding something about which you clearly know little.
You don’t sound anything like Dawkins.
“Let’s see if he can guffaw his way through an interview without pleading for anyone to shut up.”
But he never asks anyone to shut up, he argues with everyone and forever, that is what people seem to object to.
Personally I prefer the robust Dawkins/Greer approach to these numpties than attempts to placate them or endless moaning about how mean Twitter is..
@Pinkeen:
His Twitter feed shows otherwise.
Disagree. None of the ones quoted in this blogpost do, for example.
@Pinkeen:
Thanks, that genuinely made me laugh, I needed it.
@Ophelia
I’ll rephrase to I haven’t seen it in your writings on your site/blog- the way I see it being repeatedly mentioned for the trans issues.
@latsot
Im pointing out what I perceive as a double standard.
No I don’t understand but neither do I care much.
Glad to cheer you up Latsot, I can well imagine why you might need it. But would be curious if you could point out through the giggles which of toe quoted tweets think constitutes a plea for anyone to shut up.
Ok, Deepak, you’re pointing out what you perceive as a double standard. So what exactly are you saying?
I’m pretty sure I’ve never said or implied that all of those are flatly beyond discussion. I think you’re quite wrong to say I “have definitive answers for all of that.”
But in any case, why abortion? Let’s try something else – how about genocide? How about beheading people on YouTube? How about mass murders in schools, mosques, churches, markets? How about destroying Palmyra, the Bamiyan buddhas, the Babri Masjid?
In other words, yes, I think some things are or should be beyond debate. I think other things should not. Oh my god, how shocking.
[…] a sub-conversation about “double standards” in the comments on A matter of simple semantics. That’s a conversation that’s basically going on all the time, with just about anyone […]
Ophelia, you keep butting into Deepak’s argument with Strawphelia, and I think that’s rude.