"Can the women’s movement be as effective without the word ‘women’?"

Asks Megan McArdle (at WaPo). 

Ironically and amazingly, McArdle goes about trying to answer this question without using the word "transgender" — or even "gender"! It is out of deference to transgender men (and transgender women) that we're seeing this avoidance of the word "woman." But McArdle is doing her own form of avoidance in this critique of avoidance.

Let's see how she does it:

Historically, the “women’s movement” was mobilized around what sociologists call a “thick” identity. Womanhood influenced almost every aspect of your life, from the biology of menstruation and childbirth, to how you dressed and acted, to your social roles....

But if you're a transgender woman, you don't have the menstruation and childbirth component, and if you're a transgender man, you don't dress and act and perform social roles in a manner that expresses womanhood. So in the transgender-focused view of the world, the "thickness" becomes series of thinner layers.

To speak of being a woman was to speak of all those things at once, and many more I haven’t mentioned.

And the transgender-focused position regards that sort of speech as unkind — microaggression.

Though, of course, many women missed one or more of those core experiences, all had gone through enough of them to forge a powerful common bond, which translated into some pretty powerful political impacts....

Yes, so there is a political reason to keep this huge group together, to be able to appeal to them as a group. Yet a political cost will be paid, sacrificing the hard-pushed progress on transgender awareness. McArdle is demonstrating how it looks after the sacrifice. She's not even admitting she's doing it. She's just showing what it looks like after it's done.

The relative thickness of female identity explains [all the money spent on breast cancer research].... But breasts belonged to women, and women were already organized to fight for their interests. 

Now, however, the women’s movement seems to be unbraiding that identity. What used to be called “women’s health” is now for “individuals with a cervix,” media outlets (including this one) write about the threat to Roe and “pregnant individuals,” up-to-date midwives talk of “birthing people” and “chestfeeding,” and “women’s swimming” can now cover both those born with male bodies who identify as women and those born with female bodies who identify as men....

Ah! Look at all the words she wrote to avoid saying "transgender": "those born with male bodies who identify as women and those born with female bodies who identify as men." Instead of talking about transgender people as an important political group, she portrays them as a force that has broken up the solidity of the mega-group called "women," to the detriment of women.

Now, I should say, I think she's right! There are so many women, and we want our strong political representation. We disagree amongst ourselves, but all politicians must deal with us. We shouldn't give up our political power, especially when there are woman-specific interests at the very center of the present-day debate. Transgender women don't worry that they can get pregnant and don't deal with unwanted pregnancy. Transgender men may face these matters, but those interests are better served by a strong fight in the name of women, not by endless micro-inclusions that weigh down speech.

[A]ny political coalition must augment its dedicated core with a much larger number of weaker adherents. That’s why thick identities such as “woman” are so valuable....