One of the creepiest tactics of the transgenderist movement’s campaign to obliterate the words “woman” and “women” from public discourse is the way its spokespeople unctuously exhort the rest of humanity to be “kind” and “gentle” as the movement tries to wipe out the very presence of actual women in the public square.
A notable example of this comes from one of the transgenderist movement’s greatest allies, National Public Radio.
In response to the much discussed exchange between Senator Josh Hawley and a Berkley professor who bizarrely implied that Hawley was somehow ginning up violence by simply trying to bring the topic of actual women into a discussion about abortion, NPR chose to interview a—wait for it—transgenderist activist—a man who claims he is a woman.
And this man (I am not going to use the ridiculous construct of “transgender woman” because the very term is an insult to actual women) proceeds to engage in doubletalk and seems to imply that actual women who object to being disappeared from the social and political landscape and their courageous and stalwart allies are fear-ridden bigots.
The interviewer, Michel Martin, makes feeble efforts to try to suggest that normal women might have a point that terms like “people with uteruses” or “persons with the capacity to become pregnant” are, you know, absurd and offensive. She quotes a liberal woman and a conservative one to that effect, but it is the troubled man who is actually interviewed.
Let’s examine some of the conversation and note how the activist tries to paint anyone who believes in basic biological facts such as that only women can become pregnant as riven with hatred towards those in the transgender movement. He dismisses the idea that women would be harmed by being lumped in with a political movement designed for and by those who think that womanhood can be bestowed on men via mutilating surgery and hormone treatment and that femininity is all about bling, big hair and high heels.
Let’s start out with interviewer Martin and the way she normalizes the misogynistic kooks who want to ban any use of the word “woman” or “women” unless it is linked with the term “trans”:
This exchange got a lot of attention, but it's just the latest in a series of emotional, often angry exchanges and commentaries we've seen lately over the use of terms that many people increasingly prefer because they are deemed to be more inclusive but which others are vocally decrying, arguing that these terms alter, even erase what it means to be a woman.
Let me get this straight—reading normal women out of the body politic is “inclusive?”
She then refers to her male guest (again, he claims he is a woman—but no amount of wishful thinking and medical malpractice and pharmaceutical taking can turn a man into a woman) as a mother—which is another word that the transgenderist fanatics want to efface from the face of the earth:
obviously we wanted to talk with you because I would say you're one of the founding mothers of the transgender rights movement
Could anything be more grotesque than calling a man who leads a movement that regards the terms “woman,” “women” and “mother” as targets of destruction a “mother?”
Moving right along we read of the activist saying:
It was, you know, Senator Hawley, who, you know, is a trash talker, and he knows how to get attention. And he - you know, he's running for president. And so he's going to do anything to get attention. And he was trash talking…
Yeah, I don’t suppose professional activists know anything about how to get attention—like, say, getting interviewed on NPR’s flagship program, All Things Considered.
And as much as this activist loathes Senator Hawley, it is hard to fathom how the gentlemanly, professorial tone Hawley employs throughout the exchange can be characterized as “trash talking.” Unless, that is, one thinks of the word “wow” as coarse.
The activist goes on to manifest his utter cluelessness about why women do not want their history, traditions and legal protections erased in some instances or appropriated when convenient by the mostly male-led transgender movement. It is not a zero sum game says this man as he coos about how wonderful the future will be for women once they are ruled by surgically-altered men prancing about in pearls:
It isn't all zero sum. There are some good people who are really, really afraid that they are losing something. They may be right. They may be wrong. I may disagree with them. But again, if we're trying to win them over - and if we're not doing that, then what the hell are we doing? Sorry. But we have to understand that people do feel zero sum about some things, certainly about human rights. I don't know why, and I don't know why we stopped talking about the need to not think of it as zero sum. Just because some people are no longer being mistreated or who don't want to be mistreated any longer doesn't mean that other people have to be mistreated. But it feels that way.
Note the talk about “human rights.” You see, if I object to the word “woman” being expunged from the English language I am violating someone’s human rights. Note the escalation of language here. Defending the word “woman” is no longer just discourteous or “divisive” or “polarizing.” It is not even a matter of civil rights law. It is now a matter of human rights. What next—will women who defend the words “women” and “mothers” end up on trial in The Hague?
This man who makes his living trying to control the very words we speak and use to refer to ourselves goes on to suggest that if we applaud Senator Hawley for trying to make clear that abortion affects women in particular (hardly a novel notion), we are the dupes of this Machiavel from Missouri:
…we have to be kinder to each other. We have to be kinder to people who don't agree with us. We have to be kinder to people who are just wrong. We have to be kinder to people who fall for Senator Hawley's, you know, bullying. We just have to be kinder, and we have to be educating people, and we have to be educating them in the language they understand.
Right—women should just be sweet and docile as we consent to the destruction by disturbed men of all the gains women at great cost have achieved in nearly every sphere over the centuries. We have to be "educated" in language we understand--which does not, apparently, include words like "women," "mothers" and so on.
What could be more misogynistic than that?
One does take heart from the frustration that the activist expresses when he puzzles, "I don't know why we stopped talking about the need to not think of it as zero sum." Perhaps because, thanks to the tireless efforts of courageous people like Ryan T. Anderson, Abigail Shrier and J. K. Rowling, women and men across the political spectrum are finally recognizing the threat that transgenderism poses to women. Even liberal media outlets (e.g., The New York Times) are starting to express qualms about the titanic presumption of a movement that wants to overturn the entire sexual order. Liberal columinists have daughters, too.