Why “Trans woman” is a very bad word

Trans woman (n): A man who misappropriates women. Often confused with third gender people.

“Trans woman” is a bad word, both in terms of its construction as a word, and what it does to vocabulary and reality alike.

Null Definitions

The error inherent in the term “trans woman” can actually be traced back to a different word that has developed a primary null definition, meaning that the word has come to be defined opposite to its self-referential meaning.

The word that has acquired a primary null definition is the verb “appropriate,” and its derivative noun, appropriation.

Appropriate as a verb means to correctly apportion or allocate resources. However, its most popular colloquial usage has come to mean the exact opposite.

Misappropriate is the correct term for the inappropriate seizing or allocation of resources. And Misappropriation is what happens when one takes something for one’s own use, typically without the owner’s permission.

That it is a “mis” that is amiss in the midst of this mess is a delicious bit of irony for me as both a woman and a lover of the English language.

One can only ever appropriately appropriate. If you have inappropriately appropriated, you have in fact MISappropriated. That cannot also be appropriation.

The god of the internet dictionary called GOOGLE would do well to invert the definitions of the verb and mark the second as INCORRECT USAGE and tag the correct word for use which is “misappropriate”, and do the same for its derived noun.

Amazingly, nowhere in their incorrect definition is the correct word even tagged. Did this “mis” go missing by accident? For reasons I will not elaborate here, I frankly highly doubt that. I can’t imagine that people are really this stupid. Especially not when one considers everything else that is happening as well.

In any event, intended or not, this is the sort of logical error that is MOST likely to unleash whatever accident of AI Elon Musk worries about. I know I certainly did once my ruminations yielded this realization of just how problematic such a null definition already is, and how hard they are to actually find for actual human beings like me who actually know how to go hunting for them in the first place.

Moreover, finding and correcting these linguistic and epistemic errors, while already difficult, is still often far easier than correcting the bad social policies that have been created from these errors. That is, the material consequences of bad words can be incredibly difficult to correct, and they become more difficult to correct over time.

Lexical Analysis

Lexical analysis is a logical, social and cultural enterprise that is used to both find and determine the meaning of a neologism. It requires actual academic training and skill, and is an important activity because, unlike what is generally assumed, the English language is NOT “self-correcting”. Yes, we learn English naturally, but it is also *taught* by someone with greater mastery because it is a constructed and complex language.

Robots aren’t much good at either social or cultural analysis precisely because they have no FEELINGS. And feelings *are* a key part of figuring out why a neologism is creating conflict. Therefore, thorough lexical analysis is essential for correctly resolving social conflicts since it enables you to find and clarify the conceptual source of the conflict. If concepts are unclear, there is no hope of finding good solutions to the conflicts they are generating.

Words that acquire a primary null definition are dangerous to reality. This happens because they set off a cascade of logical errors in ways that are often not readily apparent until they create a particular kind of death spiral.

A word cannot mean what it means and its opposite simultaneously.

The word “trans woman” like the null definition of appropriate, is just such a death spiral of logic.

On The Misuse of “Women” and Women

The word “trans woman” is multiply misappropriative, meaning that it not only misappropriates each term in its name, but also the person-object that it is allegedly referencing.

That social reality is unfolding in a manner designed for us to come to believe that this multiply misappropriative construct is in fact appropriate, should start to tell you why the meaning of words really actually matters, and why null definitions cannot exist.

This is an indicator of a bad word in lexical analysis, by the way. When a word is attached to another word in the midst of a logical death spiral, it will manifest reality in a way that will continuously refer back to the logical error that made it, though the actual error in definition is not located in the word, but somewhere else. In this case, the null definition of the verb “appropriate” and its derivative noun.

We can tell that the word “woman” is being misappropriated in the term “trans woman” because when it enters someone’s lexicon, women are reduced to a series of epithets which simultaneously fragments and obscures the full meaning of the term “woman”.

If the inclusion of the word into a class requires fracturing and obscuring the total meaning of that class, then the word and whomever it tags does not belong in that class.

When one tries to include the being labeled by this word into the class of people called women, women and others are forced to spew forth a litany of reductive epithets: “uterus-haver,” “womb-haver,” “vagina-havers,” “menstruators,” “bleeders,” “gestators,” and so on.

The word “dick” when applied to a man is considered an insult precisely because it reduces him to his penis. Every term above and others not yet invented are all reductive epithets equivalent to the word “dick”.

Moreover, this misappropriation of “women” is leading to the real world misappropriation of funds for women. Scholarships, prizes, jobs, restrooms, shelters, and even prisons for women are no longer female only spaces, which, by definition reduces the resource pie for women.

The individuals claiming to be trans women are male. Therefore, whatever resources they require should be appropriated from the resources intended for men, not women. To do otherwise is literal theft and misappropriation.

A Note on the Usage of the word “Gender”

Note that the everyday usage of the term gender is now equivalent to the word “sex” meaning male or female. Moreover, given that only 0.5 % of people are trans, meaning that they are oriented away from their own gender (see below), tells us that essentially 99.5 % of the time when we say gender, we mean biological sex.

Gender has come to refer to biological sex in part because of social prohibitions on using the word “sex” publicly because of its connection to sexual intercourse which is rightly considered a private act and affair.

If we intend to address the social notions about women, most people will use the expression “gender role” or “gender stereotype” to talk about the way in which women are socially constructed.

This clarifies that, counter to what is taught in gender studies, most people do not *automatically* intend to refer to the social construct of gender when we use the word “gender” colloquially.  Otherwise, most people would not feel compelled to add a qualifying word to “gender” such as “role” or “stereotype”.

As such, the *functional* linguistic use of the word “gender” is to refer to “biological sex”. That is, when one asks “what’s the gender of this person?” when reading an ambiguous name, they are not asking whether this is the person in society who does more of the cleaning and nursing and teaching, they are asking if this person is male or female.

The linguistic fragmentation of women via transing is also reflected in social policies that seek to reduce women to parts for purchase. Think the push for legalized prostitution and commercial surrogacy, and the looming possibility that one day a man will have a uterus transplanted  implanted simply because he wants one.

[Note: that a uterus given to another woman is a transplant because it’s supposed to be there, in men it would be an *im*plant because it would not otherwise be there had someone not put it there.

This shows yet again the way in which women themselves become misappropriated by men and reduced to a resource from which men may take what they want, rather than another human being with which they are expected to build respectful relationships should they wish to have access to the functions of that uterus.]

Including “trans woman” also inevitably creates mental confusion by slowing cognitive processing via reducing verbal fluency since one is forced to clarify pronouns or add what ought to be redundant epithets to clarify who is actually a woman. As such, the insertion of this word into the lexicon is intended as an attack on clear speech and thinking, and that is precisely what has happened.

That there are already memes of guns pointed at women’s heads with the words “say the fucking pronoun, bitch” makes clear that those who are most determined to insert this language into reality are literal fascists as well as misogynists. And highly violent ones at that.

That in the United States it is liberals who most want to ensure that these militant, violent, male extremists, who already express a desire to kill and rape women who refuse to tell lies or be silenced, are able to become armed and trained killers under the direction of the military, tells us something profound and terrifying about the kind of place that America really is, as well as where it’s actually heading. And that a woman named Hillary Clinton was set to allow this to happen is all the more appalling, and disturbing.

Let me say this in plain English:

Any male who demands or coerces others, especially women, into calling him “woman” or “she” using threats of rape and violence is a misappropriating misogynist, which is the most dangerous and virulent kind there is. This is the man who hates women because he wants to be one but cannot become one. A mind that confused and covetous cannot and should not be trusted to wield deadly weaponry, and they most certainly have no business accessing what should be safe spaces for girls and women.

That liberals will inevitably allow such a being to become an armed and trained killer one day shows their own deep hatred of women, disguised as either “compassion” or willful stupidity.

Even courteous usage of incorrect pronouns and gender ascription is a nonstarter precisely because any attempts to do so inevitably obscures both clear speech and, by extension, clear thinking. No one is obligated to think more poorly to accommodate someone’s false belief about himself, especially when such a person expresses hatred towards you and is inclined towards violence.

On The Misuse of “Trans”

The term trans has also been misappropriated, and the nature of this misappropriation is also highly revealing.

First, a quick lesson on science. Science is divided into two main branches, the biological and the physical. The terms “cis” and “trans” come specifically from the world of chemistry, a physical science, and refers to the relative position of the functional group for different isomers of a compound.

“Cis” essentially means same side while “trans” means opposite side. Moreover, while chemical reactions may produce both isomers, one is usually biologically inert and thus ineffective as a medicinal agent in compounding pharmaceuticals, for example.

Given that functional groups are the reference points used to define “cis” vs. “trans” isomers, it’s clear that a male who does not identify with his “functional group” is a trans male. Such a person is still male, but with oppositional orientation towards his male gender, that is, away from it instead of with it. That is, he is opposed to his gender, not opposite to it. Indeed, he cannot be opposite to it, since, as mentioned already, gender and sex are the same in colloquial usage and an actual sex change is a literal impossibility.

[Note that the existence of the word “transsexual” adds further confusion to this discussion because it refers to a biological unreality for human beings. It is true that there are transsexual fish and reptiles, that is, individuals that are capable of developing into a reproductively viable member of the opposite sex without any manipulation from outsiders.

This is not at all the case for human beings. As such, the word “transsexual” should be updated to clarify this truth, or else re-defined in its application to humans in a manner parallel to the construction of the meaning of homosexual and heterosexual. This would yield the definition for transsexual as “a person who is sexually attracted to those with trans orientation.”]

That the word “trans” has been misappropriated from the land of physical science to the land of biological science and then used incorrectly is in part the source of this ongoing confusion in conceptualizing trans.

And, while biochemistry is a real science, note that biology takes precedence in the naming convention. Why? Because it is from biology that the chemistry is being derived. Therefore, following this convention, we see that “male trans” is the most correct form of the term, not “trans male”, and certainly not, and never, ever, ever “trans woman.”

On The Misuse of Third Gendered People

The multiply misappropriating trans woman doesn’t just stop at misappropriating women and “trans”, he also misappropriates third gender people by obscuring who they are based on their own self-definition.

When one examines the anthropological literature on indigenous cultures where third genders exist, one realizes that these individuals are always defined by a third word that means either both or neither gender. These words include “muxe” in Mexico, “hijra” in India, “fa’afafine” in Samoa, and “Khawaja Sira” in Pakistan.

Most if not all of these people see themselves as something other than male or female, that is, as a third gender, a reality which is not captured by the term “trans woman”, and certainly not by the laughable assertion of delusional fascist trans activists that “trans women are really women”.

Moreover, this redefining of third gender people by fascist trans activists is far from benign. It essentially redefines third gender people in a manner that presents them as being delusional, that is, captured by a false belief. This redefines them as being mentally ill when in fact they are not.

From a Khawaja Sira elder referring to so-called “trans women”:

“They can never be women. They cannot give birth. Even if they change their bodies they can’t change who they are. We are not women. We are what Allah has made.”

This sentiment is found across all third gender cultures where they have been long established and uncorrupted by Western influence. These individuals do not believe themselves to be women or men and disavow their membership to both groups by using a third word to describe themselves. The word they choose ambiguously means either “both genders” or “no gender”.

This particular misappropriation of third gendered people is designed to obscure the fact that there is yet another null definition with regards to transness in the Western world that has taken hold in relation to the word “trans woman”. That is, there are two separate and incompatible definitions of the idea of being trans:

  1. The belief that one is the opposite gender (two classes of being)
  2. The belief that one is third gendered (three classes of being)

The same word cannot be used to point to a group of three and a group of two simultaneously. And, moreover, this particular logical confusion has given rise to a proliferation of other confused terms like “non-binary” and “agender”, both of which essentially reduce to “third gender”.

So, in plain English, we start to see that there are actually two groups of people attached to the word “trans woman”

  1. Males who misappropriate women, inclusive of their pronouns, bodies, and resources. (transgender transhumanism)
  2. Third gendered people of either sex. (third gender transgenderism)

The first group are delusional misogynists. The second group are not.  Moreover, there is a very simple test to determine to which group a person claiming trans status truly belongs:

If the person insists on misappropriating women by asserting their status as female, and uses force and threats of violence to coerce being labeled as such, whether the threat comes in the form of self-harm or violence against women, he is in fact a multiply misappropriating male misogynists. If he does not do this, he is third gendered.

Although the m4 “trans woman” misappropriates third gendered people, they actually dis-identify with third gendered people in order to avoid the pronoun “it” which would inevitably go with being neither “she” nor “he”. Note that in most cultures where third gender culture exists, the third person form of verbs always implies he, she, or it, particularly in romance languages, so third gender possibility is linguistic implied in the meaning even if it is not explicitly indicated.

The reality is that though the m4 may not want to embrace “it”, he is certainly not a “she”, nor should anyone be forced to call a bullying misogynistic man “she”.

English speaking third gendered people whom I have encountered have typically expressed a more or less neutral attitude to being called either “she” or “he”, which is to say that they do not actually subscribe to the fascist trans activist notion that so-called “misgendering” is literal violence.

This is because they understand themselves to be both gendered or neither gendered, like third gender people from other cultures, which makes the gender label they are tagged with largely irrelevant to them. They may have a “preference”, but the use of these pronouns is a preference and a *request*, not a demand.

On Trans as Orientation vs Action

Trans is the orientation of being in opposition to one’s gender. The action of transitioning causes one to become third gendered, not opposite gendered since this is an impossibility.

Moreover, there are three forms of transitioning, non-chemical, chemical, and surgical:

  1. Those who non-chemically transition accept their bodies as they are and live in opposition to their gender.
  2. Chemical transitioning is required for those of trans-orientation who cannot accept their bodies as is because they are caught in the delusion that their bodies are incorrect as they are.
  3. Surgical transitioning is the same as number two but with the removal of the person’s secondary sexual characteristics and/or genitals.

The question of whether a trans person should be allowed to serve in the military is not answered by stating that trans people already serve because, unlike with heterosexuality or homosexuality, the expression of the orientation requires a fundamental disruption to the existing order as defined by visual and linguistic uniformity.

That is, trans-oriented people who actually transition are inherently disruptive in a way that homosexual people are not.

Therefore, the real question is, should a trans person who has transitioned be allowed to serve, and answering that question requires a deeper level of analysis.

First, we must consider whether the transitioned person meets existing military standards:

The military already prohibits from service those who suffer from mental conditions associated with delusion, that is, false belief, whether that illness is bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. This means that only the type 1 trans person, that is, one who is capable of non-chemical transitioning, would be eligible for service. The existence of a variety of third gender cultures which lack medical transitioning shows that it is not actually necessary for those who have trans orientation.

Individuals who have chemically dependent medical conditions, or conditions that leave them with permanent wounds are already prevented from serving. This includes those who have insulin-dependent diabetes and those who use colostomy bags. This effectively rules out types 2 and 3.

Second, we must consider where they should be housed:

First, note that males of any orientation are already prohibited from living in female barracks because of the inevitable trouble that comes with this, from a lack of privacy for male and female soldiers to the very real threat of rape or sexual assault. Female soldiers of all orientation are already at risk for sexual abuse and assault by males. Therefore, inserting that threat into their safe spaces is an immoral act.

Men who are homosexual already serve with other men and are subject to discipline and discharge if their expression of their homosexuality causes disruption. The orientation itself is not the problem. Thus, the mere fact that a man is attracted to other men is not considered a reason to remove him from male company.

This makes clear that the reason for segregating soldiers is due to the disruption created by sexual dynamics. Thus, the military operates on sex segregation, not gender segregation.

Trans activists argue that gender presentation and gender roles should not matter.

I agree.

Therefore, it is clear that a type 1 trans person must be housed with males.  This person is male sexed and it is his male colleagues who must assume the burden of adjusting to the disruption to uniformity that his trans gender causes.

To do otherwise is to misappropriate women, which is an immoral act.

If a type 1 trans person is subject to sexual harassment from his fellow soldiers, they should be disciplined. And if it is his behavior that is the route of the disruption, then he himself should be disciplined as well.

There is no legitimate reason why a male trans person should serve with women.

On The Social Construction of Gender

A common tactic used by fascist trans activists is to claim that gender is partly or entirely a social construct, much like race, which somehow in their view gives them a right of access to female space. This is, however, due to a confusion about both what a social construction is, and what is being socially constructed qua gender.

In attempting to define the notion of a social construct, genderists often point to race and attempt to draw parallels. As such, interrogating social construction qua race will clarify what a social construction actually is qua gender.

The Racial Construct

Race itself has no biological reality. That is, while one may find specific genetic markers for ethnic groups who have been subject to relative geographic isolation for many generations, one cannot find any markers to denote racial groups as we have come to define them.  Moreover, when we look at genetic variation within so-called racial groups, we find greater variability than across racial groups. This tells us that the genetic variability among humans is negligible.

While racial categories are socially constructed, skin color itself obviously is not, nor is it inconsequential. Any white person who has ever been sunburned or who has battled skin cancer implicitly understands why skin pigment is consequential and why I have no interest in becoming white.

Skin color matters, and in the case of black skin, it is a highly valuable phenotypic variation that confers greater survivability on those of us who live in intensely sunny climes.  The tropics are beautiful, and I am entirely happy that I was made for such weather.

The social construction of race is centered on ascribing, not merely negative characteristics to those who are phenotypically black, but non-human characteristics. That is, the social construct of race actually effectively constructs black people out of the human species altogether, as I highlight in this essay.

When black people reference the dehumanization or inhumanity of racism, they are referencing their removal by white people from their proper place among the class of beings called “humans.”

The Gender Construct

Given this clarity, we now see that in claiming the right to use the word “woman” and access their resources, genderists are actually arguing that male trans people’s proper place is among the class of beings called “women”. But, as has already been clarified in various ways above, this cannot be so.

And the reason it is not so is that unlike race where the distinct classes are artificially constructed, meaning not biologically realthe distinct class of beings called “women” is clearly biologically real.

In other words, the word “woman” and what it references cannot be and is not a “social construct”. This is why “woman” cannot be a gender if gender is equivalent to “social construction”.

What is being socially constructed is the woman’s role in society beyond her biology, and what are deemed acceptable jobs, personality traits, or modes of self-expression for her as a woman.

If we examine third gender cultures across the world, we see that third gender people socially construct a role for themselves, not as “women”, which they are incapable of being, but rather as caregivers, teachers, spiritual advisors, and personal companions.

These are all traditionally feminine roles, but none of them are equivalent to women or even require women, as is self-evident in the fact that these are all men who are doing these things, though they present in feminine form.

It is already established fact in the west that female restrooms and resources are specifically for girls and women qua biology. They are not simply meant for those who are assuming traditionally feminine roles. Were that the case, male nurses and kindergarten teachers should have a right to use the women’s restroom as well.

As a quick aside, this shows why it is inherently problematic to co-opt, i.e., misappropriate another cultural construct and transplant it to modern Western societies without understanding.

Thus, we can see that the only real reason that those who claim to be “trans women” want access to female restrooms, regardless of whatever actual role they might play socially (i.e. the actual social construct of gender), is because they dress as women, don’t feel like males, and assume stereotypical female mannerisms.

However, since women who do none of those things still use the female restroom, it is clear that mere dress, feelings, and stereotypical behavior are insufficient criteria for having access to the spaces designed for the opposite gender/sex here in the west.

At this point, “trans women” generally pivot to the threat to them posed by men, as if women’s own legitimate fear of the very same thing from them is misplaced. Given that there are already a number of cases of violence against women by males of trans-orientation, including murder and rape and threats to do so by fascist trans activists, there is no reason why women should be forced to assume a risk to their safety that these “trans women” themselves find unacceptable. This is simply shifting the burden of the risk onto girls and women, which is immoral.

It is thus clear that the *correct* approach to dealing with the male trans’ fear of male violence is to educate men to stop being violent to both women and the gender non-conforming boys and men that they may find in the restroom with them.

Women already accept gender non-conforming women into their restrooms. It is time for men to accept gender non-conforming men into their restrooms.

But, strangely, “trans women” seem to have no interest whatever in making that the primary charge of their activism. Why? Because their intention is, and always has been, to misappropriate women. Why? Because as already clarified above, these individuals are misogynists who do not respect women’s right to their own space or resources. This kind of behavior is what women have long called “male entitlement”.

I must also point out the absurdity of those who claim gender as a social construct engaging in a fascist enterprise to entirely remove the public from participating in the construction of social policy through tactics of commandeering the political process and silencing critics. Their behavior shows that, far from being interested in deconstructing gender as they claim, they merely seek to reconstruct it in a manner that better suits them.

This is why critical thinkers have come to regard the fascist trans activist movement as little more than a toxic, patriarchal form of gender re-entrenchment, despite their attempts to claim that they are gender liberationist and abolitionists, or, god forbid, feminists.

Curse Words of Confusion

Given its poor construction, confused meaning, and the negative reality it is engendering, “trans woman” can be assessed as being a kind of real old fashioned “curse” word, that is, a word that is so immoral, socially corrosive and negative in its meaning and impact that it ought not to be used by anyone with any frequency given its likelihood to coarsen the mind and character of the speaker, while simultaneously giving offense to those who hear it.

Once upon a time “fuck” was understood to be an inappropriate term for referring to consensual sex because it actually implies rape, violence, and the misuse of women.

“Trans woman” is quite literally a simply more elaborate way of saying exactly the same thing as the word “fuck”.

As such, those who most insist on being called “trans women” are those who are most intent on “fucking women” in the colloquial sense of “fucking them over”, a coarse term meaning to “ride roughshod over”, to “oppress”, and to “misuse”.

There is not a shadow of a doubt in my mind that the training and arming of such militantly misogynistic and fascist individuals by the United States military will precipitate the rapid unraveling of reality as we know it.

The same goes for arming idiot robots who are building their understanding of people on shit dictionaries with shit definitions that no one bothers to fix and correct.

The world in which either of those things exist as true will be a fucked one. Of that there is no doubt for me.

This saga of trans has shown me that the only thing America hates more than black people are highly intelligent women who refuse to tell lies or be silenced. And coming to that realization has been, needless to say, deeply troubling.

Trans woman (n): A man who misappropriates women. Typically a misogynist. Often confused with a third gender person.

Trans (adj): Having an oppositional orientation towards one’s own sex/gender.

Trans (n): Persons of third gender who considers themselves to be either both male and female or neither male nor female, typically live as the opposite sex/gender, but know they are not the opposite sex/gender.

Transgender (adj/n): Same as Trans.

Transsexual (n): 1. An incorrect way of referring to transgender. 2. The sexual orientation of those who are attracted primarily or exclusively to trans people.

Gender (n): 1. Same as sex. 2. Relating to the social construction of  sex-based stereotypes, see ‘feminine’ for women and ‘masculine’ for men.