Today I learnt a new word: "transphobia". This means, I suppose, irrational fear or hatred of transsexuals, that is trans-myn and trans-wymyn. By definition, transphobia is perpetrated by wymyn-born-wymyn or men-born-of-wymyn.

I don't suffer from "transphobia". To me, a necessary but not a sufficient condition for a phobia is that the object of fear or hatred should impinge on one's life. I have never, knowingly, met a trans-man or trans-womon. Of course, I may have met someone I thought was a man (mon?) or a womon, but who was really a trans-mon. (I believe the medical term for female to male sex change is "strapodictomy", but I may be wrong.)

Anyway, it seems that trans-womyn are competing with womyn-born-womyn to see who is the most offended. David Thompson reports:

A reader, R Sherman, highlighted the following comment, made in response to the MWMF’s attempt at conciliation.

What really makes me angry about this whole situation is non-trans people deciding what is and is not transphobia… The sentiment of this release is blatant transphobia, and the section calling it otherwise is just rhetoric. I don’t really believe that anyone has the right or ability to accurately gauge their own actions as phobic or not. The community being harmed is the only one with the perspective necessary to make that distinction. It is overstepping and disrespectful, to say the least, for the non-trans authors of this release to say that their policies are not transphobic and further to attempt to explain why.

[...]

And throughout the Farce of Marcotte™ similar sentiments were internalised and expressed, with one reader of Ms Marcotte’s website offering the following pearl of wisdom:

As a white woman, though, I’m not the one offended, so it’s not my call as to what an appropriate response is.

And thus any claim to moral agency is surrendered to those members of a favoured group who happen to be shouting loudest. But despite the howls of victimhood, which so define our age, it’s hard to excuse the opportunist denial of any objective criteria or coherent ethical rationale. Thus, injustice is defined, unilaterally, by feelings, or claims of feelings - and, of course, by leverage. Phobias, prejudice and oppression become whatever the Designated Victim Group, or its representative, says they are. And the basis for apology, compensation and flattery becomes whatever the Designated Victim Group says it is. The practical result of this is egomaniacal license and the politics of role-play.

Not to mention confusion.

Question for study and discussion: is Bill Wyman a man, a womon, a wymon, or a wymyn?

Answer: none of the above - he is "un rock star".