His rights as a woman

Yet again, I don’t understand how it works. Yet again I don’t understand the basic concept. Yet again I think it’s the concept that’s broken, not my reading comprehension.

Rupert Goodwins says that saying only women are women is to deny trans women’s [i.e. men’s] rights as women.

That’s such a peculiar thing to say, and to think. As usual, imagine saying it of anything else. Saying only rabbits are rabbits is to deny trans rabbits’ [i.e. lions’] rights as rabbits.

How is it possible for men to have rights as women? If men have rights as women then what do women have? Rights as men? Wouldn’t it be simpler just to leave things as they were, so that women have women’s rights and men have men’s?

RG is saying that women deny men’s rights by saying that women are women, which is absurd on its face. The only way they can make this work is by inserting magic words which are intended to delete everything we know about what we mean by “women” and “men.” If you refer to women as “cis women” then suddenly the whole category is up for grabs, and women are just part-timers in their own sex. If you refer to some men as “trans women” then it becomes okay to pretend that women, who are only part-timers after all, are oppressing men by saying men are men.

And what, exactly, are “trans women’s rights as women”? Trans women are men, so what “rights as women” can they have? What rights can they have that make it a violation of those rights for women to say that men are men? Do men have a “right” to force women to agree that they (men) are women if they say they are? What kind of “right” would that be exactly? Surely it’s more of a liability or handicap or obstacle than a right.

It never stops being weird to see adults talking this absurd gibberish.

5 Responses to “His rights as a woman”