So that’s the essence of my growing-up-as-a-female: Raised playing in neighborhoods with boys and girls, mostly outside, reading whatever I felt like reading, all of us wearing shorts and t-shirts and jeans and tennis shoes, my toys a jumble of Barbies, games, a dollhouse, contraptions like Spirographs and this Fun Flower Thingmaker, a firetruck, a dump truck and lots of Matchbox cars. Expectations? Mostly that I’d be a professional of some sort, probably an academic. And that I’d try to live a good life. I wasn’t raised in a household that articulated or even assumed any particular female-identified choices or behavior.
Was that strange or unusual? I honestly don’t think so. The girls and women I grew up with – we didn’t feel any particular need to assert any roles that we felt denied.
Nor – and this is my focus right now – did we feel any pressure to dress or comport ourselves in a “feminine” kind of way.
Perhaps others have different experiences. No doubt they have. But that’s just mine.
(Photo: My mother at the Grand Canyon, some time in the 1950’s.)
Discrimination, exploitation and worse exists and always has. The powerful use and repress the less-powerful, and this happens in a web of racial, sexual, socio-economic and cultural identities. Ask any woman or minority group member trying, say, to work in predominantly white male environments in the past or in the present. It’s real. The harsh, contemptuous, lurid male gaze cast upon women is real, something most young women can tell you about in distressing detail.
But what this rambling post is about is not that. It’s not about workplace discrimination or social exploitation. I’ll get to that in a couple of days.
No, what this is about is simply setting the stage for my …confusion and puzzlement about how we got from there to here, particularly in regard to gender “roles” as expressed culturally and socially.
Quite often those kinds of questions are posed by older folks looking back and wondering how a seemingly more restrained past became so loose. My observation takes me in the opposite direction.
And really – honestly – I’m angry.
I reflect back on the 60’s and 70’s and I see a casual, relaxed landscape in which kids and young people are exploring and figuring things out, and it seems, everyone is wearing earth-toned plaids.
And at some point – I don’t know when – the pink and blue shelves sprung up. Sprung up, exploded and closed us in.
The Catholic world has met contemporary gender questions and turmoil with its own set of movements and gathering spaces, where feminine and masculine virtues are celebrated and reinforced. Fantastic. One of my own sons has benefited greatly from one of these groups, and I’m deeply grateful.
But to recognize the risks with all that. There’s no Catholic doctrine or dogmatic teaching anywhere that insists on a particular set of “feminine” or “masculine” virtues or even characteristics. Yes, dive into JPII’s Theology of the Body and extrapolate from that and find benefit in it, but – deep breath – the insights of the TOB on this score are not dogmatic. They are rooted in dogmatic truth – the creation of man and woman as male and female by God’s will and the role of the family in the created order – but the notion that “femininity = innate receptivity,” for example, while helpful, is not anything that anyone is required center their thinking on – about women in general or themselves in particular.
So, if you are a woman who looks at the current feminine-genius-you’re-beautiful-every-woman-is-a-mother-in-some-way-love-Jesus-love-makeup-too landscape and thinks….not me.
You’re fine.
We’re fine.
And we’re still women.
Dig back into Dorothy Day, Teresa of Avila, Hildegard, Flannery, and all the other quirky Catholic women and feel right at home again.
We have to be so, so careful, in our determination to fight what’s wrong in the culture and celebrate the truth of the beauty of the human person, male and female, to not communicate a whole other set of expectations and assumptions that might, indeed, have some foundation in authentic Catholic thinking, but aren’t actually normative for every single person.
“The Real Catholic Woman” can be a mother of ten or none. She can be really interested in fashion or absolutely, totally indifferent to it. She can be hoping for a spouse or she can be fully content without one. “The Real Catholic Woman” can find “beauty” a helpful personal and spiritual concept – or not. “The Real Catholic Woman” can be ambitious and entrepreneurial or she can live more quietly, oriented to serving those around her in simple, ordinary ways. “The Real Catholic Woman” can find deep connection and nourishment from being with other women – or she can find that from hanging out with the guys, or professional colleagues or in her garden or heck, with her cats. I guess. “The Real Catholic Woman” can be deeply into Church-y things – or she can hit Mass once a week, say her prayers and do her best in life.
So many of us have felt this. In the present moment, it’s a feeling that’s deepened and exacerbated by a culture in which the value of the individual is tied to appearance, and for females, the value of that appearance is linked to implied sexual interest and availability, and all of it – every bit of it – is woven through with pornography.
Who wouldn’t want to check out of that culture and what it demands and expects of females, especially young females?
Who wouldn’t want to say – no, not me. I’m not like that. Not like other girls. Let me the heck out.
Which is really, in this context, a cry from a sea filled with the drowning
Several years ago, when I first started observing these movements, the following popped into my head. If you read my first post on this, you know that the thought of Germaine Greer and 80’s era feminists who questioned the impact of reproductive technology on women has been very important to me. What all of these thinkers – as well as pro-life feminism – emphasized wast the cultural and social temptation to, as it were, castrate women to make them more productive cogs in male-defined social and economic structures – make them easier to sexually exploit, with little fear of pregnancy – and render them more efficient workers. Hence the title of Greer’s book The Female Eunuch.
So when I started seeing this moment evolve, here is what I thought, and I can’t shake it:
When historians look back on this, they’re going to see the ultimate triumph of misogyny, enabled by technology: The ideal woman – is a man.
One of the areas in which this issue has played out in the United States has been in relation to public restrooms and now, increasingly, locker rooms. You all recall the great passion mysteriously spent over North Carolina’s “Bathroom Bill” – and all the attendant feverish and pained announcements of boycotts over the Great Injustice.
This bill is built on hate and bigotry. Expressing fears that women will be hurt by allowing the transgendered in their restrooms? BIGOT!
There are, of course, a few issues to raise along with this, but I just want to focus on one.
And that is the truth that people who want to hurt others will go to places where they can do so.
Reality-based structures and institutions must take human weakness, sin and determination to do harm to others into account in their policies and procedures.
That is simply to say, that if you have a system in which people can declare that they are female and then freely enter female-only spaces, no questions asked, and lawsuit at the ready if you do –
Men who want to hurt women and girls will take advantage of that.
You can say, “Oh, why would someone go to all that trouble?”
Hey, guess what. They do.
People with a desire, compulsion or the will to harm someone – a child, a woman – simply another person – will act on that. They will go to great lengths to place themselves in situations where they have easy access to the people they want to exploit.
For pete’s sake – we know this. Don’t we?
Creeps and criminals will go to a lot of trouble to become a teacher, a Scout leader, a priest, a youth leader – they will go through training, and put up with all the attendant nonsense, they will patiently participate in all the activities, and they will just wait – for the vulnerable person to come along, at which point, they have built trust and perhaps even gained a degree of popularity so that of course he wouldn’t do that! Of course we can trust our kids with him!
Which is why smart institutions structure themselves to protect against these people’s actions. They know – most of them having learned the hard way – and are realistic about the fact that if a person wants to hurt a child – they will go where children are.
So with Boy Scouts, you have a two-deep policy – no adult allowed to be alone with a child – at least one other adult must be present. When I was teaching in one school, we weren’t allowed to drive students home – even if we knew them from outside school. It was a pain in the neck, and sometimes these policies overreach in the name of caution (and liability) but honestly – responsible, reasonable adults know that the policies we endure in these organizations are for the good of the vulnerable. They’re for their protection.
These policies are NOT a condemnation of every potential Scout leader. They aren’t saying “All Scout leaders are child abusers.” They’re realistically admitting that a child abuser could take advantage of a situation in which adults work with children.
And so it is with bathroom bills. Especially with gender self-identification. It is not saying that a transgendered person must want to hurt a woman or girl in a restroom just because of who they are. It’s saying that someone who seeks to harm women or girls could easily take advantage of such a situation – with legal protection.
And it’s not just restrooms any more. It’s health club changing rooms, locker rooms. It’s shelters.
But what if you’re not feeling it? What if you’ve had horrendous experiences in life that have made, it seems, a sense of self – much less a contented, whole self – challenging? What if what’s inside doesn’t match what your family, your community or even the big world tells you is correct and normal?
Raised in a material, appearance, emotion and achievement-oriented culture – despair for the dis-oriented might seem to lie just on the other side of every door, around every corner.
But consider another way – formed to value this life and who you are, but also understanding that, because of weighty mystery, you – along with everyone else on earth – is broken, sees through a glass darkly – including yourself – and that as hard as it is, it is also okay, because this is not your home.
Oh, the suffering remains, and strangeness. But one just might be spared the perceived need to fix oneself right here and right now and make what’s outside “match” what’s inside.
And the older you get, the more true you see this is.
I turned – unbelievably – 59 this week. A few weeks ago, on our way back from Spain, I spent time with my friend Ann Englehart, who also turned 59 this summer. Over great Greek food in Astoria, I looked at her and asked the question that had been weighing on me:
“Do you feel fifty-freaking-nine years old?”
“NO!” she exclaimed, clearly relieved to hear someone else say it.
What does it even mean? we wondered, articulating the same thoughts aloud. What does it mean to be “almost sixty” – but to feel no older than, say forty, and to wonder – was I ever even 45 or 52? I just seem to have leapt from still almost youngish adulthood to AARP discounts without blinking. My appearance is changing, and I look at women two decades older than I and I know – God willing I make it that far – that there will be a day when I, too, will be unrecognizable to my younger self.
It is mostly misogynistic, crowd-driven, profit-fueled gnosticism.
And those of you who call yourselves feminists, take note here. The greatest energy in the trans movement is of biological males demanding access to women’s spaces: restrooms, athletics, locker rooms, shelters, prisons and honors. You do not see female–to-male individuals making the same demands. As I’ve said before, I see this movement in part as Peak Misogyny, enabled by medical technology and profit-seeking pharmaceutical companies. (Because if you do physically transition, guess what? You’re on medication…for the rest of your life.) Peak Misogyny which is trying to create a world in which actual girls and women hopefully commit to their own erasure and the best women always turn out to be men.
Yes. Erasure of actual women, is what it all seems to be about, in the end.
These females – these real, biological females who live in this Girl World – the real one – are just like you. They’re short, tall, thin, heavy, have high voices or speak in low tones, giggle or guffaw, laugh a lot or just when something is really darkly funny, think princesses are wonderful or think they’re silly or never think about them all, love cheering, love playing on the field or even both, want to have kids, can’t stand kids, wear makeup and go without, spend time on their hair or get it cut twice a year, wear dresses sometimes, all the time or never, maybe want to be cute or maybe don’t give a damn.
So sorry, young dude. Affecting a cute demeanor doesn’t get you into Girl World. And a culture that encourages you is telling you a lie. But of course, those hurt the worst by the bizarre, insistent lie of the performative, superficialities of this supercute, glittery, hip-swiveling, chest-thrusting, pouty-lipped land of cheering, dancing pink-encased princesses are, of course, as always.…girls.
Because, you know, you can dye your skin – one way or the other. Or wear a lot of makeup. It’s probably easier to do that than to slice off your penis and testicles, reform them into an open wound that you must dilate daily for the rest of your life, along with taking hormones for the rest of your life as well.
And of course we wouldn’t go for that. Why wouldn’t we? Because it’s patent nonsense and it’s profoundly disrespectful of the experiences of actual Black people. It’s performative appropriation, it’s rejection of personal, social and cultural reality.
In so many ways, what we see, talking big picture, is the triumph of narrative and nominalism over Things As They Are. We throw off the chains of creation’s connection to the Creator and the transcendent, we can be whatever we want and name it whatever we want, and inevitably, we find ourselves lost in a fundamental way.
The core to all of this activism, legislation and proposed changed is gender identity, which in this country at this moment, translates to self-identity.
This means that a person’s gender identity is based on what they declare it to be.
No surgery, medication or official documentation required. That’s what gender self-identity is all about.
What gender critical activists are holding fast to is sex. There are two sexes – male and female. A woman is an adult human female. There is no “assigned” element to this. You are either male or female. To expand protections to “gender” means to expand “protections” and “rights” to any human being who declares themselves as one or the other – or whatever.
And the minute you move beyond sex to gender as a legal category, you are in the land of “I’m a woman because I feel like it today.” And then you are in the land of males in female-only spaces – shelters, prisons and sports teams.
Well, proclaims the modern age, fix it up! Become the self you know you are inside! Lift, tuck, go to the dermatologist and the surgeon, get a makeup and hair consult, and let me tell you about the best filters!
Or…just accept? Accept not only the reality of who we are and our physical state, but accept the dissonance we live with in these bodies, on this earth, in this life.
Sorry, it’s not going to “match.” Ever. It’s just going to be. That’s the curse, that’s the gift.
And the most vulnerable women – incarcerated by the state.
As I have been trying to tell you, the battle here isn’t about welcoming a Child of God with his LadyFeelz.
It’s about women, girls, safety and rights.
And to remind you: the issue has moved beyond where you probably think it has: gender “transition” is not, in a growing number of localities and situations, about surgeries or medication. It is about self-identification, full stop.
This has dire implications for women and girls – and please note – it’s always women and girls under threat from this garbage, not men and boys.
But among the countless points I could take up here, the one I’ll focus on is authenticity and identity and the fact that, despite the hesitation of many of her colleagues, Smith, like the other academic ethnigrifters, is seen as a pretender.
She’s not really Cherokee. She can try to claim the identity, but she’s not Cherokee and she’s wrong to pretend.
Rachel Dolezol claimed to be Black for years. Problematic. Scandalous. Because Rachel Dolezol isn’t Black.
Medicate, amputate, gouge, dress how you will, you can’t change your sex.
If it’s a violation for academic ethnigrifters to claim another identity, if a white girl wearing a sari is cultural appropriation, then it is for damn sure that this is, too:
Is being male or female a matter of biology or of feeling?
Self-Identity. That’s it.
If you’re going to engage with this issue at the level at which it is actually being fought in law and social realities, that’s the question to address:
What gives a human being access to women’s spaces?
Is it biology or feeling?
Next week, I’m going to be doing my shift, helping out at a shelter for women. Every time I’ve served there over the past couple of years, I’ve imagined what it would be like for these abused, homeless women to be forced to share their living space with a man claiming to be one of them.
It enrages me.
What gives a human being access to women’s spaces?
What will change this? Changing the requirements – but I don’t think anything is really going to change until women and girls step up and step down – boycotting formerly female-only competitions in which males are being allowed to compete. A hard ask, a heroic thing to do. But it’s got to happen, I think.
Let me just add this:
This is an opportunity to bring some real clarity to one’s thinking on these matters.
Is Laurel Hubbard a “woman?”
If your answer is “yes,” then ask yourself, why. What makes Hubbard a woman?
It seems that according to the IOC and supporters, what makes Hubbard a woman is artificially lowering testosterone for a year and calling himself a woman.
There is of course a philosophical issue with the whole notion of transgenderism, but I think it’s simpler and even a matter of urgency to grasp on to the danger and nonsense of self-identification and work from there. As I have written before, this isn’t about declaring all people who consider themselves “trans” dangerous – it’s about the danger to women and girls from perverts, weirdos and just all-round dangerous people who will exploit self-id to gain access to spaces and potential victims.
If gender self-id is the law of the land, there is no way to stop them.
The realization of which, I hope, will lead people down that straight road called Logic Avenue. Simply: you can’t change sex. You can’t. You can present in gender-non conforming ways, you can chop up your body, you can perform as the other sex, but that doesn’t make you that sex.
If I had a double mastectomy tomorrow and a total hysterectomy the next, and if my estrogen and progesterone continued on their merry post-menopausal decline – guess what? I’m still a woman. Not a man. Not even if I changed my name.
And no, “deciding” I’m a man doesn’t change that. Apply that logic outward. Just keep going.
Yeah, this is only the beginning of the horror show that is sex reassignment surgery. The life long consequences are partly horrible and partly unknown. Just to toss out one more example: if a female goes on testosterone to the extent that female-to-male trans people must in order to even gain even a smidgen of male attributes (hair, coarsening skin, lowering voice, body shape) – they will probably have to eventually have a total hysterectomy, since elevated levels of testosterone in the body of a woman who’s still producing estrogen and progesterone will likely lead to cancer.
And as I have said to you before, the even more unpleasant truth is that the “trans” identity in the presentmoment includes not only these young women suffering so much – almost unbelievable levels of suffering, depression and anxiety – but also freakish men who frankly are sexually aroused by themselves as women.
There is no singular “identity” to be found, categorized and least of all, legally protected in this loose collection of emotionally wrecked girls and fetishistic males.
Women have defenses against males for a reason. There is no denying that most physical violence against females is perpetrated by males, and always has been.
But now, what if women – especially young women – are being gaslit and conditioned to repress their own natural defenses, their own instinct to protect themselves…. for the sake of “kindess”….to men?
The way I’d put it is that there’s a line – maybe not a straight one, but a line – from decades of a culture denying the material reality of preborn human life to a culture denying the material reality of sex.
In other words: If you can say that a living, breathing and growing human being has a different identity and set of rights the minute before it leaves a woman’s uterus than it does the minute after just because we say so – well, your brain is now prepped to say that a man can declare himself female – just because he says so.
Nominalism. It’s a thing. So is gnosticism. Just goes to show that it pays to study your history of ideas, kids.
As I have said before, no one, through history, has had any issue answering the question of “what is a woman?” The blunt explanation of how we know this is painful, yet true. In short: there was no question of “what is a woman” in cultures which denied one sex rights of one sort or another, denied one access to education or property or indeed, treated one sex as property OR – decided that children of one particular sex rather than another, should not be born.
My writing in this space has always been about articulating angles and approaches that I’m not seeing voiced in many other places, especially in the Catholic world. So with this issue. There is certainly discussion about this matter, but what I try to bring to the discussion here are the insights from outside the Catholic world that others – even those who are working on the issue in Catholic Land – are reluctant to bring to bear, for whatever reason: for to discuss this openly involves being honest about difficult and not-family-friendly topics like sexual fetishes, being forthright about unpleasant, even grotesque medical procedures and their outcomes, as well as the important role secular radical feminists (as opposed to captured mainstream liberal feminists) and lesbian-rights activists are playing in fighting the Trans Agenda, or to even acknowledge the enormous role that misogyny plays in the trans-rights movement.
Catholic discussions are, for the most part, also still bending over backwards to try to deal with this by affirming the existence of “trans” as an actual thing. It’s not. There is no way that a “reality” which includes young women noping out of womanhood and heterosexual men in wigs and stripper clothes demanding access to women’s private spaces is an actual cohesive identity.
I post on this – and in this way – because it is so easy to be swept up in an enforced narrative on this matter, and I want to simply offer resources for you so you can understand, first of all, the real issues here behind the manipulative rhetoric, and secondly, that if you are question the New Gender Orthodoxy – you are not alone.
I am 62 years old, female since conception. I’ve been pregnant seven times, suffered one miscarriage and one molar pregnancy. I’ve gestated and birthed five human beings. I’ve menstruated countless times, and before I started getting pregnant, my menstrual cramps were so severe – on the second day, always – that once, I had to leave a college exam because of the agony and could barely make it back to my dorm room. My PMS, for years, led to serious depression in the couple of days before my period every month, as I suspect it did for my own mother as well.
I couldn’t identify out of that – and nor, on a more serious and systemic level – can the women and girls who are denied education or a role in civic life in various countries around the world because of their sex.. I was a girl. I am a woman. I am female, in communion with all other human beings who are female, no matter if they have had children or not. Put us all in a room: the 7-year old girl, the grandmother of ten, the butch lesbian, the twenty-something party girl, the attorney with a couple of kids, the CEO with none, the religious sister, the stay-at-home-mom, the hipster artist – we all make sense together, as different as we are. Toss Dylan or Caitlyn Jenner in the mix, and what do you have?
It’s not a costume.
It’s not a set of interchangeable parts.
It’s a mystery, and it’s beautiful, and sorry guys: invert those penises, slather on that makeup, inject that estrogen, put on those skirts, shove your feet in those heels. It’s no use. Cope and seethe, dude.
Charlotte was Both 