ACLU Lawyer Invents Absurd New Term to Describe Women: ‘Non-Transgender’

The muddling of language benefits only those whose arguments and agendas rely on concealing basic truths.

Totalitarians fall under that heading, as do peddlers of transgender ideology.

In an appearance Tuesday on the long-running left-wing daily news show “Democracy Now!” with co-host Amy Goodman, American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio, a woman pretending to be a man, blasted President Donald Trump’s executive orders and — in a prime illustration of transgender activists employing muddled language to conceal truth — used the phrase “non-transgender women” to describe the adult females whom, since the inception of our species, human beings have recognized as one of two sexes.

Strangio referred to one executive order that allegedly would, “in essence, exclude trans people from various forms of shelter systems under the auspices that a trans person is an inherent threat to non-transgender women.”

Prominent conservative journalist Collin Rugg d the clip of Strangio’s comments on the social media platform X.

NEW: Transgender ACLU lawyer Chase Strangio refers to biological women as “non-transgender women” while losing it over Trump’s new executive orders.

This voice catches me off guard every time.

“Any instructions in this one executive order in essence exclude trans people from… pic.twitter.com/sYA07bBnGT

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 22, 2025

As if to highlight the scene’s general absurdity, Strangio’s extremely high voice didn’t sound anything like that of a man.

“This voice catches me off guard every time,” Rugg wrote.

Later, in response to a comment by women’s sports advocate Riley Gaines, Rugg noted that Strangio’s voice compounded the confusion.

“I had to watch it a few times to make sense of it,” Rugg wrote.

I had to watch it a few times to make sense of it.

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) January 22, 2025

Readers who wish to view the entire “Democracy Now!” segment may do so in the YouTube video below.

There is, of course, tremendous irony in Strangio’s use of the phrase “non-transgender women.”

After all, the very drawing of the distinction between “transgender women” and “non-transgender women” forces the speaker to concede that the broader category “women” cannot exist as a stand-alone term, according to transgender ideology. It requires the qualifier “transgender” or “non-transgender.”

But that way of using the word “women” would obliterate its meaning altogether. If a speaker cannot say “women” and have everyone understand what it means, then the qualifier cannot supply the missing meaning. “Women” must mean something on its own, as all words do.

Thus, transgender ideologues cannot simply say “women” because, after centuries of common usage, everyone knows what that word means. So Strangio had to muddle the language in a way that first obliterated “women” as a stand-alone descriptive word and then — with no sense of irony, futility, or shame — tried to smuggle men into that now-obliterated sex category.

No wonder they rely on confusion.

Advertise with The Western Journal and reach millions of highly engaged readers, while supporting our work. Advertise Today.