Thou Shalt Not Call Me a Fascist: The Linguistic Sins of Transgenderism

Paid subscribers get access to voiceovers read by yours truly as well as occasional early releases. If that sounds enticing, please consider a paid subscription. Thank you all so much for your engagement and support.

Trigger Warning: meanie-face TERF being mean, needlessly verbose sentences of unnecessary length, lots of talk about fascism, grievous sins, and (speaking of sins) unnecessary curses, as always.

Contents:

• Introduction and Inspiration

• The Sins

  Thou Shalt Not :

• Call Me a Fascist

• Steal Gender Critical Words

• Use Loaded Language

• Mislabel Us

• Rely on Empty Platitudes

• Redefine Words

• Erase Women

This essay was inspired by a word being used in the same way I’d seen it used countless times before; yet this time, as I lamented the misuse of the word “fascism”, I thought to myself, “Someone has got to set these fools straight on what this word means. While we’re at it, what about “Nazi”, “totalitarianism”, “bigot”, and (somehow) “woman”?

And as always, one decently sized essay idea blossomed into an absolute beast of an outline fed by some serious scope creep. What started as a snarky little piece to define words for those too lazy to use a dictionary ended up becoming this monstrosity with a set of 7 (rather than 12) commandments to help steer the lost linguistic sheep of transgenderism towards the logorrific1 shepherdesses of TERFdom.

Trans lack of linguistic consideration is not limited to the following list, but our lives are finite and I can only write about this for so long before one of us falls asleep. Here, in no particular order, are several of the naughty linguistic misdeeds of the transphilic:

• They misuse all manner of words in order to vilify the gender critical. (Ex: fascist, Nazi, totalitarianism, etc.)

• They steal words and phrases used to describe them and transgenderism from us in order to misuse them in an attempt at linguistic revenge. (Ex: “ideology”, “clocky”)

• They develop pro-gender language full of presupposition and misrepresentation to control people both ideologically captured and otherwise. (Ex: AMAB/AFAB)

• They use misnomers such as TERF.

• They rely on logical fallacies, slogans, and manipulation techniques that do not rely on cognitive thinking and an ability to express one’s argument.

• They redefine words to suit them, at the expense of others. (Ex: genocide)

• They strip women of their own language and replace it to suit them. (Ex: chestfeeding, people with vaginas)

From the above list, we can develop our set of 7 commandments:

• Thou Shalt Not Call Me a Fascist

• Thou Shalt Not Steal Gender Critical Words

• Thou Shalt Not Use Loaded Language

• Thou Shalt Not Mislabel Us

• Thou Shalt Not Rely on Empty Platitudes

• Thou Shalt Not Redefine Words

• Thou Shalt Not Erase Women

Because you have no clue what the fuck you’re talking about!

Rather than use accurate vocabulary, trans-identified folks and their allies opt to misuse big, scary-sounding words like “fascist”.

You aren't hurting my feelings, which I suspect is your goal. Unfortunately, you are also making yourself look ignorant. I am declaring the following list “uh-oh words” that are commonly misused by trans apologists:

• fascist/fascism

• bigot

• transphobe/transphobia

• totalitarianism

• Nazi

• woman

Rather than define all of these words for you, let us start by looking at the usage of just one word: fascist.

If I was one of those people with the requisite patience and resilient mental health to attend events like protests with a microphone in order to interview trans-identified folks and their allies, I'd spend an entire day just asking for one favor: tell me what a fascist is.

If we were to define it based on usage within the trans community, it would likely mean some combination of the following:

• A really mean lady

• A white supremacist

• Rapists, murderers, and people who torture for funsies

• Someone undeserving of even the most basic of consideration and respect

• Someone with an opinion I don't like

• People who go through the stuff in your bathroom just to be nosey when they’re actually supposed to be washing their hands2

• Feminists

A combination of all or even some of these groups will never produce a fascist because:

Believe it or not, a fascist is someone who supports and promotes fascism.

Fascism is a grandiose fucking accusation to lay at the feet of the gender critical, because it is a political ideology that is far-right, authoritarian, ultranationalist, militaristic, and seeking total state control over society.

Let's play a game called TERF or FASCIST. All you need to do is identity the three gender critical positions to win nothing but a sense of satisfaction that you're not as stupid as a trans ally on Twitter.

Which 3 of these traits are emblematic of the gender critical rather than fascists?

1. They want to crush any resistance to their ideology with military might.

2. They seek to eliminate free speech.

3. They believe that sex-based rights matter for women and girls.

4. They think males should not enter single-sex facilities meant for females.

5. They think males who enter single-sex facilities meant for females should be publicly hanged, or something.

6. They believe in a dictatorial leader with supreme power.

7. They are highly nationalistic and antagonistic towards outsiders.

8. They believe that we should take a cautious approach towards chopping healthy body parts off of children.

9. They believe in strict control of the media, economy, populace, and culture to prevent disagreement and conflict.

10. They silence their opposition with force.

So, if you don't get the idea, think Nazi Germany. (Correct answers: 3,4,8)

To be honest with you, dear reader, I find this to be so absurd that it makes me angry. I'm not upset over accusations but I am personally offended by how ridiculous such a claim is.

We don't have time for this bullshit, which is why I refuse to correct anyone who calls me a fascist. If someone is happy to sling that word around as an insult, they are not going to be willing and able to do the work needed to understand the first thing about my position. It's futile.

Honestly? I'm exhausted just writing about it.

I’ve noticed that a number of trans-identified folks and their allies have adopted some vocabulary that feels a bit, well, forced. While I have no direct evidence to back up my suspicions, I get the impression that some of the words the gender critical use to describe genderphiles have been purposefully snatched up by said people to describe us in return, as a form of “linguistic revenge”.

As a possibly controversial example, I have seen gender criticism labeled as an “ideology”. While this isn’t exactly incorrect, it seems to be an attempt to belittle our beliefs by insinuating that we are driven by the same blind ideological fervor that they are, at the expense of any attempts at reason. I believe that the underlying conclusion is that rather than defer to science and logic, that trans ideologues cling to ideas that they find preferable to the truth.

I would not be surprised to hear some gender critical readers disagree with this assessment. I must admit that it is the most tenuous of my conclusions about transgender language usage. That’s why we get it out of the way early!

As a less tenuous example, the word “clocky”, an already awkward sounding pair of syllables, is being used to describe women who may resemble men in some way.

Well, that's the idea. How it is generally put to use is to insult beautiful women whom transphiles despise, or in an attempt to shame women for the same sort of masculine traits that would get you accused of a hate crime had you pointed them out in a trans-identified man.

I most recently saw it used to describe Sophie Cunningham, which is an almost adorable, thinly veiled (maybe unveiled, even) instance of envy-encrusted hatred.

The word comes from the verb “to clock” someone, which isn't the same as “to clean one's clock”, an old phrase that might be fun to bring back. “To clock” someone is not to bash them upside the head, but to determine that they are male despite their attempts at deceiving others into believing they are female.

So, like, what we do with most of these guys. (I love MaryCate Delvey.)

This video was meant to show you how such an asshat may attempt to misuse the word “clocky”, but it also contains some bonus words such as “TERF” and “fascist”. This could almost be a comedy routine because of how ridiculous it is, but unfortunately, it is both too short and tragically lacking in humor.

In case you're interested, this particular envymonger has gained himself some attention with the following video in response to the recently released EHRC Guidance:

“Listen to trans people!!”

That's what started all this TERF shit, no pun intended.

Pro-gender language is heavy with presupposition that makes holding an honest conversation about the topic very difficult, if not impossible.

Transgenderism, as a movement, gains much of its power from the way its adherents use language, intentionally or not.

Commonly utilized pro-gender terms are treacherous territory for anyone earnestly attempting to engage in productive dialogue surrounding this topic as they are rich with presupposition.

Using these words may cause you to unintentionally cede ground in your debate, or simply muddy the waters, leading to miscommunication or confusion.

Here are a few of the culprits I've encountered time and again:

• assigned (sex) at birth (AMAB/AFAB)

• TERF

• cis/cisgender

• gender-affirming care

I will touch on the word “cis” in the next section. For now, let us consider the phrase “assigned (sex) at birth”. This turn of phrase was enthusiastically picked up by folks far beyond the trans community without the batting of a single eyelid.

The trouble is that we don’t assign sex at birth. The use of the word “assign” insinuates that a decision is being made by a third party (not sure why they don’t just ask the baby) about which sex the child is. In 99.9% of cases, the doctors in question simply observe the genitals of the infant and check the appropriate box (of which there are only two).

While 1-2% of babies are born with DSD (differences of sexual development), nearly all of them are born with unambiguous genitalia. In the case of some DSD, the genitals of the child do not match their sex. For example, a child may be born with a vulva (the external genitalia of a female) and internal testes. These children are often raised as girls as the presence of a DSD may not be apparent until the child is older.

As a note, be wary of slippery language in this arena. While researching, I saw the following statement: “Imane Khelif is not transgender and does not identify as intersex.” While this is 100% true, it is not truthful or indicative of Khelif’s situation. Khelif is not transgender, but then again, transgenderism has nothing to do with DSD. And of course they3 don’t “identify as” intersex (having a DSD), so that statement is also true. Neither of these clauses tell us whether or not they have a DSD, which is why the wording is so precise.

The cases in which external genitals are ambiguous are not even worth mentioning. That’s how few there are. Far fewer than one thousand recorded.

The word “assigned” may seem innocuous at first, but it is doing some major heavy lifting here. It makes sex seem like a choice because when there is a choice to be made and someone else makes it on your behalf, they can be wrong.

It is not a choice that can be “right” or “wrong”, but an observation that is sometimes, but not often, not enough to answer the question of which sex the child is.

What does limb reduction have to do with DSD? Nothing, really, but I think it helps give you a reference point to which you can compare the prevalence of DSD. Also, I think it's amusing to imagine demanding a “limb spectrum” and specialized language to convince outside observers that doctors are “assigning” a number of limbs to newborns.

It's funny because it's ridiculous but it's the same principle. In fact, we have more reason to develop a spectrum of limb reduction because you can have partial or full loss of a limb in an assortment of configurations but you can only be male or female. Just saying.

I embrace the label of TERF and even apply it to myself gleefully despite being more of a gender critical bitch than a radical feminist. While my position would not exist without feminism, it is the case that gender criticism led me to feminism, not the other way around.

My mild objection to your use of the word TERF isn't the result of hurt feelings or a fear of the label. Rather, I'm slightly annoyed because it is a misnomer and I'm a pretty big fan of the truth. It's the incorrect word for multiple reasons:

1. I'm not “trans exclusionary”, but rather, “male exclusionary”. Trans-identified women are welcome in feminism because they are women.

2. As much of an honor as it is to be referred to as a radical feminist, I feel a bit phony wearing that label. I'm more of a “learning to be a feminist” feminist majoring in gender criticism and minoring in radicalism. Not all gender critical women are radical feminists.

3. It creates an expectation that can get in the way of getting to know someone and/or their opinions while you rely on stereotypes and preconceptions.

While I don't expect the average person to understand why using the word “TERF” can be manipulative and flat-out wrong, someone like Judith Butler does understand that, and yet, she makes ample use of it in order to mislead her audience and villainize gender critical women. No surprises there, but it is useful to note that use of the word “TERF” has spread to all manner of places where it can sow confusion and stir up hatred.

While most women labeled as “trans exclusionary” are likely “trans-identified male exclusionary”, portraying us as “anti-trans” makes it all that much easier to disagree with and hate us.

Truthfully, most of us are not terribly concerned with how trans-identified women impact others. Sadly, they seem to hurt themselves more than they harm anyone else. In fact, many of us would love to help them somehow, but our reputation makes that difficult.

“Cis” is another one of these words that may initially seem innocuous, but that misses the mark on a fundamental level. “Cis” was meant to be the complement to “trans”, and that's exactly where the problem lies.

The definition of “trans” necessitates the supposed existence of a gender identity, and “cis” does, as well. In order to legitimize transgenderism, someone who is “cis” is said to live in congruence with their gender identity, rather than admitting that we do not possess this fantastical “gender soul”.

The moment you use this word, you concede to this worldview, and you're already in trouble. If needed, “non trans-identified” or “not totally delusional” should work as alternatives.

While some of the names we are called may be demeaning or dehumanizing, their persistent harm lies in the confusion and derision they are not unlikely to cause. This isn't a matter of not getting our feelings hurt, rather, it is a matter of knowing your enemy.

TRANS WOMEN ARE MEN.

TRANS WOMEN ARE MEN.

TRANS WOMEN ARE MEN.

To any transphiles masochistic enough to hate read, are you convinced? What if I shout it at you with included emojis?

💕🎉✨TRANS WOMEN ARE MEN.🌈💖❣️

Do I really need to explain why this is not only ineffective, but exasperating? It's simply a waste of time meant to halt cognition and prevent the nightmare that would be realizing you're wrong.

I originally wrote, “I would rather have a conversation, no matter how useless”, but that's just not true. The truth is that these people are doing me a favor by announcing their inability to engage in critical thinking before I make any attempt to converse with them.

An afternoon with The Cass Review has reminded me that many young folks view a trans identity in much the same way as they do sexual orientation - as a part of their identity to be honored rather than a source of distress to be addressed by medical professionals.

As a result, they are not only uninterested in but incapable of holding a conversation about this topic whilst remaining grounded in reality. When these young ones say, “Trans women are women”, they really do mean it because they have replaced the reality of sex with gender. Sex is not just irrelevant but non-existent.

I was recently informed during a conversation not quite about transgenderism but hovering around it, that a mysterious “they” are “redefining genocide”. While I could not get an answer as to which they/thems are redefining the word, I was given the impression that the task is being undertaken by some sort of “genocide experts”, and not a bunch of trans-identified folks desperate for greater victimhood. Just so you're all aware.

From over here, it looked to me like a group of people had spent years crying “genocide” with others ready and willing to stake their reputations on this claim and now that they've been called out on it, the only solution seems to be to redefine the word itself. But then, I found out that some “genocide experts” are looking to redefine the word, but not in order to include the comparably trivial concerns of the trans-identified folks in the West. That doesn’t seem to matter much to the wider community, which contains many who believe that they truly are experiencing a sort of “genocide”.

It is bad enough that transgenderism is based on the ideas of stereotyping and appropriation. It is on a whole new level to try to claim that an official requirement for trans-identified folks to ensure the sex on official documents is correct in Kansas counts as an “act of genocide”.

This is yet another act of colonization perpetrated by the trans community. In much the same way that they redefine the vocabulary of women at our expense, trans-identified folks are eager to take something from others for themselves rather than crafting or creating their own.

It is not a harmless act to lessen the gravity of a word like “genocide”. To strip the word of its weight is to rob victims of genocide of what little they receive in payment for lives callously disposed of: a word weighed down by its horrific nature and the pain of the millions it has murdered.

But they cannot be given respect for even that one word, paid for by millions of lives and billions of tears. To transgenderism, nothing is sacred.

I know this one gets many of my readers pumped up, and for good reason. Attempts to erase the language of women converge from all angles of the gender polygon in order to shield trans-identified men, trans-identified women, non-binary folks, and the agenderqueerfluid alike from the basics of reality at the expense of women.

There are many examples in the realm of health, wellness, and medicine as biology presents the patient with potentially distressing run-ins with reality. Examples include:

• people who menstruate → women

• chestfeeding → breastfeeding

• front hole → vagina

• people with cervixes → women

• humans with vaginas → women

It's not just inconvenient, but downright destabilizing and distressing to rob women, often mothers, of the language used to describe their unique lived realities outside that of men for a tiny segment of the population. It's just another way to show women that they don't matter.

This erasure, on behalf of the gender non-conforming, is mainly perpetrated by well-meaning allies, or more likely, sycophantic organizations eager to align themselves with whichever causes reflect most positively on them.

So, in a way, this commandment is for trans allies more so than for trans-identified folks themselves.

For the gender critical, I have a suggestion: when someone refuses to follow these commandments, decide whether this is the best way to spend your finite energy and time. It's easy to get sucked into meaningless arguments with unreasonable transphiles online but you deserve better.

And while I don't expect my seven commandments to take off in the way the original twelve have, I hope this serves as a guide to help bring us all a bit closer to understanding, if possible.

Until next time, stay guilty of thought crimes!

MadFem XX

• Ambiguous Genitalia and Disorders of Sexual Differentiation (Khawar T. Mehmood; Rebecca M. Rentea.)

• Regarding presupposition and language manipulation: Mary Jane Murphy

Share Unwelcome Archive

Share