It began with “she”

And it only seems appropriate to come back to that this Women’s Month.

“She,” three letters that represent half of the world’s population.

“She,” a tiny word for a meaningful description and vast history.

“She,” possibly the most passively eroded and actively polluted term in the past decade.

Calling men “she” is never an innocent, neutral, or passive act.

It strips a word, our word, of any meaning and all value and hands its ownership to those who are owed none. It reduces women from a specific, complex, and inescapable reality down to a nebulous feeling, and often extremely sexist ideation, that a man can opt into as desired, though women can never opt out of themselves. It robs confidence and self worth in the young to watch their protectors give away her reality to make way for his fantasy.

Allowing “she” to become meaningless creates for the loss of earned rights, opportunities, and overall respect. This is not a dramatic leap; it is simply the next logical step when prioritizing certain feelings over others' actuality. The ongoing grand theft of our medals, awards, spaces, safety, and dignity, by reaching the depth of telling a woman to call her rapist “she,” would never have been possible without first stealing our language.

Despite this, many people equate certain, special men being correctly called “he” as an insult, as one is not going by what they personally find respectful.

But what about what women find respectful?

Somehow the former always seems to trump the latter, whether consciously or subconsciously.

Why is a man's desired language worth respecting, but not women's concerns over his appropriation of theirs?

Why is it important to show empathy to a man's perceived condition or situation (the irony being that the driving force behind said condition is much darker than acknowledged), but there is rarely any empathy left for women calling out the resulting misogyny?

Why is hurting a man's feelings to be avoided at all costs, but women's feelings while watching their own reduction can be dismissed as irrelevant? Further, why do so many assume women don't even have these feelings?

If you smirk while listening to this and think it ridiculous, try replacing the characteristic of sex with any other, and observe how quickly you instinctively are offended at the disrespect shown within this analogy in terms of race, disability, or sexuality. Should white individuals be allowed to appropriate and identify into organizations, spaces, and scholarships created by and for other racial demographics? Should perfectly physically abled people be able to identify as disabled to receive special benefits and funding? Should heterosexual individuals be granted access to same sex attracted spaces or organizations and demand to be accommodated?

If all of these appropriations would be unacceptable, why are women not afforded the same respect when it comes to something as significant and immutable as our sex?

The answer always comes back to this simple truth: women are the only demographic of all that include no men. And so we are left with a further depressing truth: women still are not fully seen nor respected as actual whole humans that experience equally significant feelings and realities as men. Any impact on women's own mental health, let alone tangible rights and opportunities, is both a negligible issue and acceptable byproduct of catering to prioritized men who are more entitled to our words and reality than we ourselves are.

Still, many out there will insist on defending this dehumanization in the timeless quest of “being kind.” But understand that “being kind” is also a loaded choice, and your choice of to whom to be kind will typically be at the expense of kindness to others.

For men, naive good-naturedness doesn't really cut it when so much is on the line for the other 51%. What may only be an inconsequential concept to muse over is much more real and sinister for the rest of us. To even reduce an existential nightmare down to philosophical play is to shamelessly admit that one doesn’t believe members of the female sex are worth as much as male desire.

And for women, there is absolutely no need to be kind at the cost of being dishonest and cruel to yourself and fellow females. We are all worth more and deserve much more than that which attempts to redefine and flatten us into a one dimensional caricature. Recognizing, standing up for, and living that knowledge may not be as catchy or popular of a slogan, but that is the truest form of kind that one can be.

We are allowed our own language, reality, and rights, and despite popular opinion, we are actually allowed a movement of our own to organize on behalf of our specific needs and the issues that affect us solely. Not only is it okay to say this, it is essential to have clear definitions and boundaries if a group hopes to ever address problems and achieve anything concrete for themselves. See history, and see today.

How can one stand for women if one doesn’t have enough respect to allow us our own reality?

How can one define women’s rights if one cannot define a woman?

How can one ever hope to genuinely protect such rights if it’s not even possible to state mere truth without concern of offense nor fear of repercussion?

Concede language, concede reality, concede a future.

It began with “she,” but it never intended to end there, and it will keep taking more and worse. As with most issues created by men yet thrust onto us, it is sadly up to more women to wake up and recognize that they not only own the right to “she,” but the obligation to defend it. We owe it to every generation that sacrificed for “she” to be something to be proud of. We owe it to today’s women and girls who are being taught that our immutable, lived reality can be reduced and perverted to a meaningless label that can be gifted to those who mock us the most. And we owe genuine progress to future generations who may one day be able to simply laugh at the utter asininity of a past coup against biological truth.

“She” is not some label or costume that can be given away for sympathy or a prize awarded for good behavior. “She” is already inclusive enough at over half of global humanity and does not need the forced and false inclusion of sinister and sexist intrusion, as the insertion of those who aren’t meant to be always leads to the exclusion of those who are.

These three letters are ours only, because this existence is ours only.

Because our reality is real enough, our experience authentic enough, our feelings valid enough, and our needs worthy enough without any aberration and co-optation.

And because despite the circusry that promotes otherwise, “she” actually means something, for us and truthful reality at large, and in this month and always, that is something worth holding onto.