Whenever people start to passionately argue about proper word definitions, it’s probably because somebody wants to get away with verbally hurting other people. Either that, or they are super excited about linguistics, and let’s be realistic—majority of people have no interest in philology. I say this as a person who has a master’s degree in German philology—whenever I try to tell people about how languages are really exciting, they instead find excuses how to change the conversation topic.
But what does “getting away with verbal abuse” even mean? If I dislike some person and I call them an “asshole,” I might get called out for it. Somebody can say, “This was rude and offensive, moreover, you hurt this person’s feelings.” If I wanted to emulate the typical behavior of a bigoted person, at this point I could argue that “asshole” isn’t a rude word, instead it’s a perfectly neutral description of who this person is; after all, I cannot be rude if I merely state things as they are. This is how some people try to insist that calling trans women “men in dresses” cannot be an insult, because it merely describes the reality as it is. On top of that, the person who said this transphobic phrase will argue that they aren’t even a TERF or a transphobe, instead they are “gender critical.” Just like people with racial prejudices are not racists but “race realists.” And mass murders of entire populations aren’t “genocides,” but some other euphemism du jour.
People who want to call trans women “men in dresses” know very well that these words feel like emotional violence for a trans woman. Transphobes want to call trans women “men” exactly because they know that it will hurt. Simultaneously, they also want to get away with it by proclaiming that “it wasn’t an insult, I am just stating a fact, I am just ‘gender critical.’” Just like people who use the n-word are merely “race realists.”
Back when I was a child, I was taught the word “Gypsy.” Then, at some point, I learned that Romani people do not like this word, which is considered by some Romani to be pejorative. At that point my only reaction was, “Fine, whatever you prefer,” and I switched to using the word “Romani” instead. Similarly, I won’t use the word “Negroes” when referring to people of color, because said people have clearly stated that they don’t like it.
When some group of people dislike it when you do X, why not just obey their preferences? Unless you secretly harbor some antipathy towards an entire group of people, it makes sense to just use their preferred words without making a fuss about it. A trans-accepting person will simply use male pronouns when talking about me, because I stated that I prefer to use male pronouns. When somebody instead starts arguing about which pronouns fit me better, it’s because they dislike me as a person, they want to undermine my sense of identity, they want to hurt and abuse me.
Here Hj Hornbeck wrote about violence and how to define it. What actions can or cannot be labeled with this word? When somebody promotes transphobia and tries to undermine the rights of trans people, is this violence? When somebody tries to control someone’s behavior in social networks by using their finances as leverage, can this be considered economic violence? Those are interesting questions, and I personally agree with Hj Hornbeck’s conclusions.
But why do people argue about which actions should or should not be labeled with the word “violence”? Why have the definition wars in the first place? Human languages are artificial constructs, word meanings are inherently arbitrary. The moment a group of people agrees that some sequence of sounds means something specific, then that’s what this word means. Some society can define words like “woman,” or “violence” to have any meaning they like; word meanings can be either very narrow or very broad.
For example, in English the word “abuse” has a very broad meaning. You can use the same word to say “drug abuse,” “emotional abuse,” “domestic abuse,” “verbal abuse,” “physical abuse.” In Latvian, I would have to use a different word for each of those. In my native language these is no similarly broad word with the same meaning.
Here’s another curious example. In Latvian, “violence” is translated as “vardarbība.” This is a compound word.
The word “vara” means “power” in Latvian. The English word “power” has multiple meanings (physical strength, influence, might, energy). The Latvian word “vara” is different, there is only one meaning: “possession of control, authority, or influence over others.” It can be used to talk about having legal or official authority. It can also be used to talk about, for example, a gang leader or a person who commits domestic abuse and thus has gained power over a victim who takes the beating. In Latvian, there is also a verb, derived from the same root, “varēt,” which means “to be able to do something.”
The word “darbība” means “an action” in Latvian.
This means that, etymologically, the word “vardarbība” means basically “exercising power over others without their consent.” Alternatively: “abuse of power.”
The actual meaning and everyday usage of the word “vardarbība” is pretty much identical to how the word “violence” is used in English. In Latvian, people mostly use this word to refer to physical violence, but concepts like emotional violence or economic violence are recognized.
Of course, right now I am not trying to make an argument that the etymology of some Latvian word is somehow relevant to how the word “violence” ought to be defined in English. I shared this fact, because I find it curious, that’s all. And, of course, I know that the etymology of some word is pretty much irrelevant when arguing about what it should mean nowadays. For example, did you know that the word “bank” is derived from an old word that use to mean “counter” or “bench”? In past, this word was used to refer to the moneychanger’s bench or table. (In modern German, the word “die Bank” is a homonym and has two meanings; it can mean either “bank” or “bench.”) Anyway, I’m a linguist, I find word etymologies fun.
But I do have a different point: people can decide what some word should mean. Words and concepts differ by language. Word meanings aren’t set in stone, concepts change, and word meanings can shift. For example, a century ago marriages were only between a man and a woman, they had to be church-sanctioned, and they couldn’t be terminated. Nowadays, two men can get married without getting anywhere near a church, and they can also get a divorce soon after. Alternatively, a century ago the concept of “marital rape” didn’t even exist. Societies and their values change, word meanings adapt.
Theoretically, people could collectively decide that the word “woman” means “an adult person who was assigned female at birth.” But the society can also decide that “women” are all those people who want to live and be recognized as such. The same goes for “violence,” people can decide whether some actions should or should not be considered as violence.
So why do these definition wars happen? If we, as a society, collectively agree that some behavior is “racist,” “sexist,” “transphobic,” or qualifies as “violence,” then there is an expectation that people should stop engaging in said behavior. This is why we constantly hear discussions about whether some behavior X is or is not racist. People who have certain prejudices towards people of color want to keep on practicing this behavior; therefore they so adamantly argue that said behavior cannot be labeled as racist. They want to have their cake and eat it too. On one hand, they know that people of color dislike being treated this way, therefore they want to keep up practicing some racist behavior. On the other hand, they don’t want to be criticized by other people or labeled as “racists,” therefore they so persistently argue that said behavior cannot be considered racist. Of course, the same goes also for transphobia and every other form of bigotry.
Human societies ascribe meaning to various actions. How comes that shaking some random stranger’s hand is considered appropriate while touching another person’s butt is seen as abusive? Technically, both actions are somewhat similar, because in both cases one person touches another one, it’s just that society has ascribed different meaning to both actions. Alternatively, how comes that saying some sound sequence to another person can be humiliating for them? The humiliation is not intrinsic to the act that was committed in order to humiliate some person. Rather, this act is semiotically charged by the shared attitude of all the people who are engaged in it (namely, both the victim and the bully perceive this action as humiliating). Humans invest specific words, acts, objects, or body parts with a humiliating aspect, which then can be used for abusing or controlling the victim.
If people collectively agree that throwing flower petals at somebody else is not violence, then that’s how everybody will perceive it. If we agree that throwing rotten vegetables at other people is violence, then that’s how it will be perceived. Whenever there is disagreement—namely one side says that some action is violence; while the other side says that it is not—the chances are that somebody is trying to get away with hurting other people.
———
At this point, my transphobic readers (I know that there are a few TERFs lurking in my blog’s comment section) probably wonder how can I justify using the word TERF. After all, people whom I call TERFs want to be called “gender critical feminists” instead. If I was willing to be kind towards Romani people or people of color or everybody who wants to use a specific pronoun, then why won’t I extend the same courtesy also towards TERFs?
I use the word “TERF,” because I have little respect for people who call themselves “gender critical feminists.” I don’t care if they dislike this label. Unlike TERFs who pretend to “merely state facts about gender and sex,” I do not try to hide my distaste for transphobes. Nor do I care about arguing whether “TERF” is or isn’t an insult. If somebody feels that I am insulting them by calling them a TERF, then I won’t bother with arguing that actually “TERF” isn’t an insult but just an accurate description of the reality. If somebody feels offended, I don’t care.
Moreover, for me “gender critical feminist” feels like a euphemism similarly to how “race realist” is also just a euphemism for “racist.” If somebody engages in bigoted behavior, I will just use words like “racist,” and “transphobic” instead of using some euphemism du jour of their choice. I have no reason to be kind towards bigots.
By the way, I have also heard a different term, namely FART (feminism-appropriating radical transphobe). In comparison, TERF isn’t even that bad.
I like “abuse of power” more than “violence” because it implies a) pre-meditated and b) abuse.
I call TERFs gender hypocritical because they usually are. Racism, classism, and many bizarre logical contortions are de rigeur with TERFs (e.g. “infertile XX people aren’t women!”).
My personal example for this is my mum in laws second name. my mum in law has a second name, as many people do. It’s a normal name, although old fashioned. Not “Adolfine” or something that would mark or embarrass you. My mum in law hates her second name, so nobody ever uses it. my kids don’t even know it. That’s because everybody understands that calling her by that name, which is a perfectly normal name, which is HER name, would be an asshole move. I have yet to hear any argument as to why it would be an asshole move to use my mil legal name but not an asshole move to deadname a trans person or call somebody a n… or a g…
Well, that and the more harmful potential of rotten fruit.
A good definition of violence that we work with in school is “to do something to somebody against the will of that person”*. This covers a broad range like physical violence, throwing paper balls, calling names, etc.
* Within limits. Asking then to be quiet, or to do their tasks isn’t covered by this, not is a classmate asking is you can lend them a pencil. Again, these are things that we, as a society, agree upon. Unless everybody keeps asking that one kid for all their stuff. Then it’s bullying.
No, Terf isn’t a slur. It’s a term trans exclusionary radical feminists coined themselves. I still don’t use it much for a very simple reason: Most of the time it’s not an accurate label. It’s really hard to spot the difference between a trans exclusionary feminist, a trans exclusionary radical feminist and a reactionary conservative when just looking at some transphobic piece of writing. I will not go “No True Scotsman” and claim that no real feminist is ever a transphobe. A lot of them are some garden variety of feminist. They are in favour of equal pay and against sexual harassment and so on and occasionally my trans friends on Twitter gently whack me over the head because I didn’t check whose seemingly wholesome feminist content I retweeted. Yet few of them are even radical feminists as in a certain school of feminist thought. And some of them aren’t even feminists at all, so i will simply call all of the transphobes or trans antagonistic.
Giliell @3:
Odd, I got the impression TigTog wasn’t a TERF. Have they changed since this interview?
Giliel’s (@#3) as to why calling someone by their perfectly ordinary name would be a bad thing if you know they dislike is an excellent example of why it is respectful to call people by what they want to be called. I do struggle with how far to carry this though, as Andreas’s post discusses.
For example, it appears that neoliberals and neoconservatives dislike being called that because of the pejorative overtones those labels have acquired. Should I stop using those labels because they dislike it? Does the answer hinge on whether one has respect for them or not, as Andreas suggests? That does provide a solution since I have little respect for neoliberals and neoconservatives.
As for TERFs, they have really puzzled me from the first time I encountered them and the label. Transphobia itself seems so irrational that it is really puzzling to me that people who describe themselves as radicals and feminists and otherwise on the progressive side of issues would adopt such a stance. I am sure that they have some rationale for it if I go into the weeds but I don’t know that I have enough of a desire to make the effort.
Mano Singham @#5
Actually, my answer is much more complicated than just respect. Am I dealing with a hate group who try to hide behind some euphemism? When it comes to racists, transphobes, Nazis, etc., I won’t use their preferred euphemisms. I feel like their euphemisms of choice are just attempts to obfuscate their true attitudes.
When it comes to some political ideas that I might disagree with but don’t consider particularly awful, at least relatively (neoliberals, neoconservatives, etc.), then usually I use the terms preferred by the people who want to call themselves something.
In my opinion, nope, their rationale is ridiculous. According to TERFs, trans women are dangerous, because they are just men who wear dresses in order to get access to women’s toilets and dressing rooms, because they want to rape women in these places.
Why not just call them “transphobic”? It seems that using an over-specific label creates an opportunity for them to weasel around and argue they are feminists or whatever. The issue is that they are transphobic; I don’t care if they think they are feminists or not – though it seems to me that eqalitarianism is a requirement for feminism and one cannot be egalitarian and transphobic, therefore one cannot be transphobic and feminist.
Marcus @#7
Transphobes come in various flavors and they dislike trans people for different reasons. For example, a Christian transphobe will make different arguments than a TERF. If I am talking specifically about the standard TERF arguments why trans people shouldn’t have some rights, then it is useful to differentiate this branch of transphobia from other varieties. For example, a TERF could claim that I am a confused butch lesbian who should go back to embracing womanhood. TERFs tend to treat trans men in a highly patronizing manner and display superficial concern for our well-being. A Christian transphobe, on the other hand, would probably be hostile also towards butch lesbians and claim that I am instead batshit crazy. Instead of patronizing, they would be outright hostile towards me.
I probably don’t have a typical experience of struggling over word definitions. I enjoy the struggle and think that’s a personality feature. I see a lot of different reactions to definition struggles and it feels like a political challenge to me.
I can easily imagine that others can get tired of definition struggles and I wonder if it can be looked at as a political reaction to feeling negative about how common words are used?
My understanding is that some TERFs are very deeply invested in believing that ALL gender-associated behaviors are purely societal constructs, and thus are things that all people can and should shrug off. They believe that society should move as rapidly as possible towards a world where the very concept of gender is meaningless, and people are viewed as individuals with no gender-based expectations placed upon them whatsoever.
Then, along came trans individuals saying “Gender can’t merely be a set of assumptions taught to us by society, because if that were true, then how could I feel so deeply that I’ve been assigned to the wrong gender? Would I be willing to upend my life and submit to painful and dangerous surgery just for a set of arbitrary societal expectations, especially when I feel as if I’ve been bucking society my entire life?”
So I think TERFs’ opposition goes a little deeper than just the “men in dresses invading our spaces” trope. If what trans people are saying is true, then some of their most deeply held beliefs about gender are false. But, well, they ARE false — they just need to get over it.
TERFs are now calling themselves “fourth wave feminists”, trying to hijack (and I choose the word intentionally) the progress in feminism. TERFs want a return to second wave feminism – white and cisgender only.
Marcus Ranum @7:
“Feminism” is typically defined as “studying sexism and/or engaging in activism against it,” but this merely kicks the can down the road. What is “sexism?” There was a time when an influential block of feminists thought that discrimination against lesbians was not sexist. TERFs pull the same trick against transgender people, arguing that denying their human rights does not count as sexism and therefore they remain feminists.
Intrasitive @11:
Ack, I keep forgetting to write that blog post! Thanks for the reminder.
brucegee1962 @10:
That’s the bedtime story they tell themselves. In practice, the more sophisticated of them hold that gender-associated behaviours become hardwired at the start puberty. A girl raised as a boy will learn to behave as boys do, and there is no way to un-learn that behaviour once they reach a certain age. Societal constructs become no different than built-in biological urges at that point.
Strangely, they never seem to think “maybe we should raise boys differently” or “some people may be raised differently” or “human beings can change their behaviour after puberty begins.” That would reveal the bedtime story to be a ruse, an apologia for bigotry. To quote myself quoting myself,
When you start peeling back what being “gender critical” is in practice, it’s just “EWW PENIS” rephrased with big words and appropriated terms-of-art. Layer the wallpaper thick enough, though, and it looks like a solid wall.
I have to say, I think the TERF example is relevantly different beyond the respect I extend them.
TERFs are not just asserting something about their identity. They are asking that I adopt their preferred spin. Insisting that someone else use a EUPHEMISTIC rather than neutral descriptor is nowhere near the same as asking someone else use a different, hypothetically equally neutral descriptor. And people asking to be called something different in terms of political and religious identity also are much more likely to be playing rhetorical games. They are objecting to the label of TERF because it sounds bad and makes it hard for them to slip their ideology in, not primarily because it is hurtful. When someone has a dishonest intention, it is relevantly different.
Not to undercut your thoughtful point, just saying: TERFs are objecting to a neutral descriptor by dishonestly pretending that the descriptor is not neutral. They may have a point that I am not using the term with no feeling, but that is due to their ideology, not the word I am using.
And then I read your comment at 5 and find you making the same point. So… yay for me being redundant!