He then mocks them for claiming that sexual violence can be traumatic to them when they believe that it’s possible for casual sex to exist. He goes on and on for several paragraphs that are far harder to follow than his whimsical absurdist writing at the beginning. He seems to be claiming that if you believe men and women are not different from one another, then you cannot believe that rape is wrong. I’ve read the piece several times and I think that’s what he’s claiming. It’s hard to tell with his annoying verbosity. But this implies that the only rape that ever happens is heterosexual rape, and surely he doesn’t think that.
He goes on to insult transgender people: Yet wait—we are told that there are no such things, not really. A man can be a woman by declaring himself to be so. He then pranks himself up with lipstick and affects a girly voice, and instead of being a rather unpleasant and boring fellow who is engaging in some bad impersonation, he is taken seriously. He is a trans-woman, which I believe is supposed to be a man pretending to be a woman, as I believe a trans-man is supposed to be a woman pretending to be a man. Of course, there need be no end to the pretending. What do we call a man who is pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man? A boomerang? Or a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a marsupial? A boomerangeroo?
That’s wrong. That’s not what a trans woman is. I’m not saying you have to agree with the view on gender that a transgender person has, I’m saying that that maudlin definition is flat out wrong from the beginning. A man who wears a lot of girly makeup and impersonates a woman does not call himself a trans woman (note the lack of a dash). A trans woman is a person born with male genitals, given a male name and raised as a male, who believes that this is a terrible mistake and that they are actually a woman. Some trans women wear makeup, change their tone of voice, take hormonal medicine or get surgery to make their bodies conform to what they believe about themselves, and some don’t at all. A man who “pranks himself up with lipstick” and does an exaggerated impression of a lady is called a drag queen, which is something else altogether. You may agree this is unreal, but it’s not irreal, not something that cannot exist in any conceivable universe. It exists right here in ours and it’s not what Esolen says it is. It’s much closer to irreal that an academic with a PhD would write an article for a magazine mocking a whole category of people, such as transwomen, while doing zero research into what they actually act like or believe about themselves, but even that doesn’t really cut it.
“Here we are squarely in the realm of the irreal,” Esolen assures us in the absence of any evidence. ” I can imagine a talking horse. I cannot imagine a talking mute… I can imagine a madman who says that women deserve no special consideration from men. I cannot imagine someone who says that women deserve special consideration from men, because there are no differences between men and women.” Except that that’s not what anybody has said. Some people believe that the definition of a woman is different than what you believe it to be, but nobody said a woman isn’t different than a man. Also, whether sexually assaulting a woman while drunk at a party is wrong has absolutely nothing to do with whether a woman is different than a man or deserves special consideration. That’s something else altogether. If rape is only wrong because men and women are different, then a man raping a man or a woman raping a woman is just fine.
“I can imagine a madman who says that a woman is mighty enough to fight in the front lines of a battle and wrestle with a man armed with a bayonet, who wants to kill her. I cannot imagine the madman who says that the same woman must wilt like a flower if she has to wrestle with a man armed with nothing, who wants to grab her.” All right, Tony. Can you imagine a madman saying that a specific woman who goes through specialized training, carries a gun and upholds herself in combat is in a very different position than an unarmed tipsy woman who is attacked at a party by a drunken man? Can you imagine a madman saying that that a certain woman might be able to be trained and go into combat with a modern weapon (bayonets are not used in contemporary combat, to my knowledge) is not the same as saying that any given woman can fight off her own rapist at any time? Can you imagine saying that men both go into combat and are traumatized if they are sexually assaulted, which sometimes happens, and this is not at all an absurd contradiction? If so, you have not written anything that approaches the irreal.
” I can imagine a very bad man or woman who says that sex has no meaning, and therefore sexual assault is not a big deal. I cannot imagine the very bad man or woman who says that sex has no meaning, and therefore sexual assault is one of the worst crimes that a man can commit.” But can you imagine a person, good or evil, who says that sex is something deeply personal but different than what you think it is, and who holds that since it is so deeply personal it ought always to be completely voluntary? And that therefore involuntary sexual contact is a traumatic and hideous thing? Because if you can imagine such a thing, you have not written anything irreal. You don’t have to think something is a mistaken idea, for it to be irreal. You yourself said so.
“I know why sexual assault is evil. It is because the act of sex is holy. I know why it is not just evil but despicable to subject a woman to violence. It is because she is a woman, not a man.” But you are wrong on both counts. Sexual assault is not evil because sex is holy. Sexual assault is evil for the same reason that sex is holy: because human persons are made in the image of God and intrinsically valuable. That’s the Catholic answer. And it is despicable to subject a woman to violence not because she is not male, but because she is a human person. Violence against persons is despicable. It is a sin against the commandment, “Thou shalt not kill.” That’s the Catholic answer as well. It has nothing to do with whether or not the victim is a woman.
“I suspect that the enemies of the Church still have some sense of reality, and that it occasionally breaks out into the open, in chaotic and unreasonable ways. Maybe we can eventually persuade them that a baby is a baby and not a wart. For the near future, the odds are greater that I will meet a mermaid on the shores of a pond, grilling fish. How sweet and real that would be.”
Doctor Esolen, might I suggest that you stick to writing absurdist dialogues? You’re excellent at them. Truly first rate. Just delete the middle paragraphs and you’ve got a smashing essay.
And keep your shoes on, thank you very much.
(image via wikimedia commons)
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In