The transphobes want to ban the word «non-transgender» now (+more trans news)

NY Times hammered for article referring to biological women as ‘non-transgender women’

When X banned the term cisgender it was clearly an attempt to control language in such a way that it would become impossible to describe the difference between women who are not transgender and those who are not.

The goal was to lock in the idea that all women have to be «biological women». Still, one might think that activists who spend most of their time attacking transgender women would have to acknowledege the existence of such women and that they therefore would need ways of separating the two categories.

In practice they do so, of course, but in their ideological fervor they are now pretending to be offended not only by the term «cis» but also the term «non-transgender». «Real women» are not «non-transgender», because that would imply that transgender women are a women.

Anti-trans activist must know that we use adjectives to describe different categories of women on a daily basis, also categories that do not refer to types some do not recognize. Some do not like «independent women» or «strong women», but they still accept that the adjectives can be used. So what it the point here?

This is an Orwellian attempt to stop journalists and politicians from using any language that would imply an acceptance of the existence of trans women as women. The point is to force everyone to refer to trans women as men. Their goal is the linguistic erasure of trans women, leading to the political and cultural erasure of this group.

They will have to abandon the term «real women» next, I suppose, as «unreal women» is also a category of women.

It is imortant that we make journalists and politicians aware of this trickery.

Jack Molay

Photo: Drs Producoes