Woman: A Non-Circular Definition

Reflections on Matt Walsh's *What Is a Woman?*

I have several transgender friends. They’ve always been cool to me, and I sympathize with them. I also have several friends who have been deeply disturbed by their kids’ transgenderism. They have also always been cool to me, and I sympathize with them, too. All of these friends were on my mind as I watched Matt Walsh’s instantly infamous documentary, What Is a Woman? You can stream the full movie on Twitter here.

Main reflections:

1. This is a sublime, humane, and hilarious movie. Documentaries normally bore me, but this one had me on the edge of my seat. The people who condemn it as “offensive” or “transphobic” are childish fanatics. You may not like Walsh on his Twitter feed, but it’s hard not to like the Everyman he plays in this movie.

2. You could accuse Walsh of hand-picking fools to interview. If you’re paying attention, however, you’ll see that the IQ of his hostile witnesses varies widely. Surgeon Marci Bowers and psychology professor Patrick Grzanka both struck me as extremely intelligent. They floundered with Walsh’s questions not because they’re dumb, but because they were hamstrung by their own dogmas - and fear of accidentally uttering thoughtcrimes on camera.

3. “What is a woman?” This is the documentary’s central question, asked a hundred times over. None of Walsh’s hostile witnesses gives a non-circular response. But they totally could have, and remained 80% true to their faith! What they should have said:

   Literally, a woman is an adult human female. But to be nice, we extend honorary woman status to biological males with strong gender dysphoria.

   While this initially seems odd, we’re just treating the word “woman’ the same way we’ve long treated the word “parent.” Literally, a parent is a human who has sexually reproduced. But to be nice, we extend honorary parent status to people who adopt kids. Strictly speaking, they’re not “real parents.” But it’s rude to say so, and even ruder to make a big deal out of it.

4. To see the strength of this response, imagine an alternate universe where no one has ever adopted a child. Then a handful of people start to do so, baffling the rest of society: “Face reality! You’re not a parent.” However, the number of adopters grows at a rapid rate, until they hit critical mass and start posting angry videos on social media screaming, “Adoptive parents are parents!” The reasonable position, again, is that while adoptive parents are not literally parents, it is nice to extend them honorary parent status.

   

5. Are there any important disanalogies between transgenderism and adoptive parenthood? Sure. Most obviously, the social benefits of adoptive parenthood are plainly immense. Kids who would otherwise grow up in orphanages get devoted guardians to raise them. Adults who would otherwise be childless get cuddly kids to raise. What’s not to like?

6. In contrast, and to be blunt, the social benefits of transgenderism are unclear. Yes, some gender dysphorics feel better. But others continue to feel pretty unhappy with their situation. And with rare exceptions, their families, especially their parents, are traumatized. “Overall social benefits”? To get a strong answer, you have to dismiss some of these preferences as fake, ephemeral, or illegitimate.

7. How would such dismissal work? Preferences with a strong genetic basis are the opposite of fake or ephemeral. You don’t have to be Darwin to see why transgenderism scares parents: How are they supposed to get grandkids if you reject your biological gender? And while there’s strong evidence of genetic influence on sexual orientation, there is also strong evidence for a massive LGBT social contagion in decent decades. Which is not exactly the same thing as “fake” or “ephemeral,” but definitely “fake or ephemeral adjacent.” Research on “desistance,” moreover, is directly on point.

8. Could we just dismiss some preferences as illegitimate? Sure, but then things get really complicated. Even preferences with a strong genetic basis can be totally illegitimate: Think of a fertility doctor who secretly fertilizes every egg with his own sperm. The main thing to realize is that this is a two-way street. The current elite view is that opposing your kids’ transgenderism is illegitimate. Walsh pretty clearly thinks that transgenderism itself is illegitimate. It’s hard to see how either side could convince the other.

9. What is clear, however, is that “honorary” membership in a desired group is a positive incentive to join. Calling people who adopt “parents” encourages adoption. Calling men who identify as transgender “women” encourages transgenderism. Five years ago, I would have assumed that the latter effect was a rounding error, but I was totally wrong. The Gallup numbers really are shocking.

   

10. In his interview with Marci Bowers, Walsh asked her about “transableism” or “apotemnophilia.” If a healthy person identifies as disabled, should surgeons treat them with elective amputations? Bowers scoffs, but the analogy is sound.

11. What is the point of What Is a Woman? Though Walsh is studiously coy in his film, he’s upfront in his Twitter feed. As best as I can tell, he wants to forcibly shut down the whole medical transition industry for adults as well as kids. And if he accepted my proposed definition of womanhood, I’m confident that he’d strongly advocate denying “honorary woman” status to anyone.

12. My own view: I’m happy to extend honorary woman status to anyone who asks nicely for it. I’m also happy to be friends with people who feel differently. At the same time, I find Walsh’s transableism analogy compelling. I just bite the bullet and affirm that adults have a right to amputate whatever they want, and surgeons have a right to sell such services. That said, if an adult friend asked my opinion of elective amputation, I would adamantly discourage them from doing it. I’d probably say much the same about hormonal treatments as well.

13. Last, while I favor a strong presumption of deferring to parents’ judgment of what is best for their children, surgical or chemical treatment of minors’ gender dysphoria looks like child abuse to me. I am amazed that adults who are horrified by teens having sex, drinking alcohol, and using drugs would be blasé about elective amputation. And no, I don’t trust the judgment of the professionals who offer such services.