OPM - TERF Edition

In today's iteration of Other People's Money, my broken-record refrain that big-government always boils down to those three words, we have Kara Dansky, who self-describes as a "feminist fighting for the sex-based rights of women and girls," and her column (re)posted at FAIR's Substack.

What is a TERF and Why it Matters in Today’s Political Climate

Dansky first seeks to define TERF, an acronym for "Trans Exclusionary Radical Feminist." She notes that the term has been treated as a pejorative by the trans-activists and their allies/enablers, oftentimes by denouncing TERFs as right-wing reactionaries. Dansky rejects the right-wing characterization, which is fine, because TERFs are merely a subset of the large swathe of people of diverse political stripes that understand that "biological sex is grounded in material reality."

Dansky's "aha" moment lies in this observation:

American TERFs finally have entered the public debate about whether there is such a thing as “gender identity,” and whether it deserves the same legal protections as those granted to biological sex.

Note the phrase "legal protections." They stand in for the real trans-activist goal: coercion. As in, coercing anyone who doesn't buy into the "biological sex is irrelevant, gender is a social construct/feeling/whatever we say" folderol into submitting to that alternate reality.

If the trans acceptance movement were merely about acceptance, about getting us to consider trans individuals as we do all other individuals in society i.e. as persons who deserve a baseline of respect and golden-rule behavior, we'd not be having such a brouhaha.

The "problem" lies in the hard reality of the two sexes. Equality, in that context, seeks to remove sex-based barriers from society, but that equality does not reject the fact that men and women are different, and that difference invariably results in such things as men's and women's restrooms, locker rooms, and athletic competitions. While private businesses can set their own restroom policies and locker room policies, and private sports leagues can set their own criteria, this still doesn't eliminate the biological differences between men and women. Nothing, including modern science/medicine, can, and no "expert" will ever convince me that Lia Thomas does not enjoy a fundamental biological advantage.

The latter part of Dansky's article is feminist screed, with which I generally agree in content if not necessarily in tone, but all that aside, the crux of the transgender matter is laid bare. It's about using the power of government to give men access to women's spaces, about bending business practices to their knee (i.e. decreeing how their money should be spent), a foundation for lawsuits, and, just coincidentally, about riling people up for fundraising purposes.

Someone once said that "woke" without coercion would not be a problem. The subset of "woke" that is trans-acceptance would not be such a big deal if it were simply a societal debate about how each of us should treat someone (adult, I must note) who is trans. Another's life, lifestyle, choices, inner truths, or pursuit of happiness does not bother me absent the requirement, upon pain of punishment, that I react and accede and comply a certain way.

But that is not the society we live in today. The transgender battle is a microcosm of our broader problem, i.e. those who believe force is the proper means of "advancing" society (via their own roadmap and to their own outcomes, of course) and those who reject the coercion. Sadly, those who seek acceptance but reject the use of force suffer, as the rejection of the coercion often instills a rejection of acceptance as well. That's where the libertarian in me shakes his head, but, sadly again, I'm used to seeing such collateral damage. It's hard to maintain the "golden rule" when being assaulted by woke-thuggery, but it's the only way forward. Being better than the woke is how we win the rather misnamed "culture war." At its heart, it's not about "traditional" vs LGBTQIAetc, especially since LGB and T are not the monolith some claim. It's not even about reality vs unreality. It's about who decides what reality is: each of us, judging our senses and the best that science can tell us, vs a deranged minority of Best-and-Brightest who wallow in their post-modernist delusions.

And who lust for power, authority, the boss-man's whip, and Other People's Money.

That's much more the heart and truth of the trans-activists' efforts than anything they tell us or themselves about wanting to protect an oppressed group, and they don't care about the harm they're doing - to the acceptance effort, or to children, or to the trans persons for whom they are white-knighting. Their mongering against TERFs tells the tale.