Womanhood is a tent big enough to accommodate Kim Kardashian and trans women, according to Val McDermid, the crime writer, who claims that concern about transgender rights is overblown.
No it’s not; it’s not any kind of tent, big or small. It’s not a tent and it’s not expandable in the sense that it can mean itself and also its opposite. If “woman” can mean “man” then it no longer means “woman,” so what use is it? We still need a word that means what “woman” used to mean, so why not just save ourselves the trouble and stick with the word we already have? If men who consider themselves woman-like want a word for themselves they should invent a new one; the word “woman” is already taken.
In an interview with The Sunday Times, McDermid says: “I can remember [Section] 28. I can remember people saying: “You’re not a proper woman. I don’t want you in the same changing room as my wife. We are doing the same thing again.”
No we’re not, we’re doing a different thing. Lesbians are women. Men are not women. That’s why it’s not the same thing.
Comments
6 responses to “Neither a tent nor the Pentagon”
Oh, look: the language of social clubs. How surprised I am.
Presumably “Val McDermid, the crime writer” also considers the tent to be big enough to accommodate Barbie Kardashian.
Pretty soon I’m going to owe you royalties, Ophelia.
Another Substack post that began as a reply here and then grew into a post over there instead:
https://artymorty.substack.com/p/how-big-is-the-womens-tent
Never mind the royalties, you owe me your comments!
More accurate phrasing:
“Womanhood is a tent big enough to accommodate Kim Kardashian and trans women, according to Val McDermid, the crime writer, who claims that concern [for women’s safety] is overblown.”
Ah, yes. Womanhood is a tent big enough to accommodate the pornified male fantasy of a woman and men who fantasize about being women. We can all guess who the tent doesn’t accommodate.