Eli Erlick (she/her) is a Ph.D. candidate at UC Santa Cruz researching political philosophy, social movements, and trans studies. We don’t know if she was trying to make Supreme Court nominee Katanji Brown Jackson look like an idiot, but she succeeded. Jackson famously could not define “woman” because she’s “not a biologist.” Erlick, who’s not even studying biology came up with the definition with no problem:
A woman is anyone who identifies as a woman. Boom. Done.
— Eli Erlick (@EliErlick) March 24, 2022
That’s it? So if, say, Matt Walsh decides to identify as a woman, then he’s a woman, right? Boom. Done.
Sure, we can get into the semantics of what “identifies” means (the next step of Matt’s question). Identification isn’t simply a pronouncement but also an internal state of being. This is why Matt Walsh can’t simply proclaim “I am a woman” and be one.
— Eli Erlick (@EliErlick) March 24, 2022
Wait, we thought this was, boom, done. But now we’re getting into semantics. We can define “woman,” but not without defining “identifies” first.
Reactionaries will then follow that response by claiming “then womanhood is meaningless.” But it isn’t: womanhood is a historical category that has shifted with time. We’re simply explaining the current iteration of its meaning.
— Eli Erlick (@EliErlick) March 24, 2022
This reminds us of Matt Yglesias’ take earlier, what definitions change with time. And now we’re being told that womanhood is a historical category that has shifted with time. Tell us, how much has it shifted over the last, say, couple of millennia vs. the last couple of years?
Erlick has limited replies, so let’s see how the quote-tweets are coming along:
Hey @MattWalshBlog, here's a PhD candidate in trans studies saying that you can refuse to acknowledge trans women as women, if you don't believe they are sincere enough.
Enjoy! https://t.co/hR62wuVm3W
— InTheRightColumn (@TheRightColumn) March 24, 2022
This statement: "Matt Walsh can't just proclaim he's a woman and be one" invalidates the entire basis of trans ideology.
If I can deny that a trans woman is a woman because I don't think that person is authentic enough, then there is no reason to change any language or behavior. https://t.co/hR62wuVm3W
— InTheRightColumn (@TheRightColumn) March 24, 2022
Love to know how we're supposed to assess thus "internal state of being" when deciding what prison bus to put people on after court, you absolute melon https://t.co/Tu05xEqwJh
— Sam *Peggy* Vimes (@SamuelVimes10) March 24, 2022
Since people's internal states are not subject to verification Matt Walsh can simply declare himself a woman and no one has any insight into the truth of that and therefore can't fight it. https://t.co/PPFImKKG2J
— GhostOfSteveFoster (@SteveFosterLich) March 24, 2022
By this reasoning, there is no way to verify whether Matt Walsh has this "internal state of being" apart from what he says, yet she authoritatively declares he is not a woman.
Which, of course, is exactly what *we're* saying. Men can't declare themselves women. https://t.co/m3gaNTaVsx
— Time Of Heroes (@TimeOfHeroes_) March 24, 2022
Translation: Only liberals can identify as a woman and therefore “be” a woman. https://t.co/NP0VkuisQW
— Crazy like a cat Hayes (@HayesThat) March 24, 2022
Exactly how do you confirm someone's internal state of being @EliErlick? How do you know, quantifiably, that when @MattWalshBlog says "I'm a woman" that the internal state of being doesn't exist? https://t.co/y4Ig2yxXk7
— The Okie Papist (Not a biologist) (@okiepapist) March 24, 2022
You don't know what Matt Walsh's "internal state of being" is, and that's why this entire attempt at disinformation fails. https://t.co/PpVwoozAR5
— Upstate Federalist (@upstatefederlst) March 24, 2022
Transphobic Eli denies Matt Walsh's lived experience https://t.co/SMjLFkIeRk
— AnarchoCatholic 🇾🇪 (@AynCath) March 24, 2022
Who determines which pronouncements are of "an internal state of being"?
How would a confused individual parse out authentic feelings of being vs. inauthentic? What's the standard?
If a hypermasculine man authentically feels that he should be called a woman, is he one? https://t.co/ihjHnmB088
— Michael Austin (@mikeswriting) March 24, 2022
“Internal state of being”, so a subjective religious belief then https://t.co/xj9Tn3cBPj
— Teodocia Smith (@zuzusmith75) March 24, 2022
@twittersafety @twittersupport This is transphobia rhetoric and needs to be removed. People are who they say they are. If Matt Walsh says he is a woman, that is valid. https://t.co/VqQC4FiQlC
— Zoe Gender Freedoms Chan No TERTS 🏳️⚧️ 🏳️⚧️ (@UwuUwuUwu2000) March 24, 2022
This is a doctoral candidate specializing in trans studies and she still hasn’t convincingly defined “woman” for us.
Related:
Matt Walsh offers intriguing look at his ‘What is a Woman?’ doc, in which he ‘watched gender ideology crumble right in front of my eyes’ https://t.co/5BOQxPLQRB
— Twitchy Team (@TwitchyTeam) March 24, 2022
Join the conversation as a VIP Member