I was researching womyn's land yesterday when I came across this discussion: http://www.metafilter.com/78766/The-end-of-womyns-lands#2434808
I took the time to read through the whole thing. It's nice to know that some people somewhat sort of get radical feminism and separatism, but I remain baffled as to how radical feminism is "essentialist," particularly to the group of people who think that "gender is in the brain." That seems like the epitome of essentialism to me.
Then I hit upon a hypothesis motivated by previous readings of queer ideology: queer projection. Here is original situation in which this idea first presented itself: When people call queers the "wrong" pronoun, they describe it as being "misgendered." There's really no way to assign any concrete meaning to that term, because there's no way to know what any given person is talking about when they say "gender," but, rest assured it does not refer to sex, as they frequently point out the difference between the two, though they tend to mix them up at other times. However, in general use, pronouns do
refer to sex, and that is how most people use them: males are "he" and females are "she." It's only the queers who use pronouns to refer to "gender," yet, if they project that concept onto others, it would explain why they misinterpret being sexed as being "misgendered." This has happened to me personally; I referred to some guy as "he" because he was male, and was accused of disrespecting his "gender identity," which was not only not
my intent at all, but could not have been
my intent because I don't even know what "gender identity" means.
Furthermore, in order to propose the many bizarre things that queers propose about sex, such as, it is a "social construct," mutable, or enumerable beyond two, obviously, one must have a unique definition of the term. I have observed, however, that one who challenges these ideas about sex is accused of having one's own definition of sex. What could that be besides a case of projection?
In addition, some queers do not seem to have a firm grasp of the fact that they are pushing an ideology, something that must be supported before a thinking person will accept it. They take their precepts as the gospel truth, seem dumbfounded and concomitantly enraged when others do not, answer questions with various versions of "because we say so," automatically suspect the questioner of ignorance and/or hatred rather than curiosity, and generally regard ideological challenges as personal attacks rather than legitimate discussion. This lack of awareness creates a situation ripe for ideological projection.
Let us now consider a hypothetical queer, one who projects her ideology onto others. She comes across radical feminists who state that men are not women. Perhaps, rather than grasping that "men" and "women" have mainstream definitions outside of her ideology, she projects her
notions of manhood and womanhood into the words of these feminists. And her notions, well, it's not really clear what they are, but, as much as I can gather, manhood and womanhood are either some sort of feelings and thoughts in the mind, or they're some sort of social roles, and, in either case, are therefore at least theoretically available to anyone. And if these feminists are saying that some people (men, to most of us) can't inhabit womanhood, then they must be saying that there is some special relationship between womanhood and this other group of people (that would be women, to most of us), and they must be saying it because they think womanhood is some sort of essential nature of that group of people, because what they say directly opposes the idea of the general availability of womanhood. And so we get accusations of essentialism.
And from this to that which is the most mystifying of all: why no one seems to feel the need to justify the idea that men can be women. The word "woman" has a definition; it clearly excludes males. Some people come on the scene, loudly announce, "ok everybody, men are women now," offer no explanation, and present with incomprehension when people don't go along with their idea. Surely someone in touch with the reality of being an ideological minority would perceive the necessity to offer some sort of theory to motivate acceptance of such an idea. And what does "woman" even mean if anyone can be one? Where's our new definition to replace the old? There are so many holes, it boggles the mind. Perhaps I am a fool to continue to expect it to make any sense.
But I want an answer to this, dammit. If you are reading this, and you know the reasoning behind why anyone is expected to accept males as women, please tell me.