The End of Logic: When “Clarity” Means Cruelty

An Inconvenient Truth About Polly Clark’s War on Nuance

Photo by Drew Hays on Unsplash

Friends, gather ‘round. Today we’re going to talk about something that apparently died recently - nuance. According to author Polly Clark, it was murdered by Helen Joyce on BBC Radio 4, and honestly? They seem pretty happy about it.

But before we dive into this pool of contradictions deeper than a philosophy major’s thesis, let’s talk about that header graphic. You know, the one that shows nuance as someone calculating the physics of an approaching object while “truth” is just yelling “LOOK OUT!!”

The Visual Fallacy That Gives the Game Away

That header image is doing a lot of heavy lifting, folks. It’s trying to convince you that nuance equals unnecessary complexity that’ll get you killed. But here’s the thing - if a 1500 kg mass is approaching your head at 45.3 m/s, you’ve got time for exactly zero conversations, nuanced or otherwise. You’re already paste.

This is what we call a false dichotomy fallacy wrapped in a straw man argument. Nobody’s asking for nuance when immediate physical danger exists. But comparing trans women existing in public spaces to an imminent collision? That’s not clarity - that is not just a bad metaphor, it’s one that’s using manipulation through fear.

The real irony? The person doing the calculation has actually provided more useful information. They’ve told you the mass and velocity, which means you could theoretically calculate if you can dodge it, how far to move, or if you should just make peace with your deity of choice. “LOOK OUT!!” tells you nothing except that someone’s panicking.

The Supreme Court of Selective Interpretation

Clark celebrates Helen Joyce's appearance on Woman's Hour as some kind of watershed moment. They frame this around the UK Supreme Court's ruling on the definition of sex[1], presenting it as if the law just discovered that biological sex exists.

Here's the inconvenient truth: The Supreme Court ruling didn't change the fundamental legal landscape as much as Clark suggests. The Equality Act 2010 has always allowed for proportionate single-sex exemptions where justified[2]. What the ruling clarified was how to interpret "sex" in the Equality Act - not whether trans people deserve dignity or protection.

But Clark writes with the breathless excitement of someone who thinks they've just won a war rather than a technical legal clarification:

"Joyce was no longer making a moral argument; she was stating a legal fact."

And here's where Clark accidentally reveals the whole game. They think that because something is legal, it's automatically moral. But friends, let me remind you: Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Segregation was legal. Apartheid was legal.

Legality is not morality, and never has been.

Joyce has been making the same arguments for years. The only difference is now she can point to a court ruling that her organization actively campaigned for[3]. This is like a card player who stacked the deck celebrating their "lucky" hand. They're not revealing some eternal truth - they're just admitting they finally got the referee they paid for.

The Myth of the Un-Nuanced Man

One of Clark’s most fascinating claims deserves a full examination:

“Nuance is not evenly distributed. Men do not apply it to themselves. When men assert a right, or an opinion, they are not asked to be more nuanced. They are respected for their clarity.”

[Pause while every woman who’s ever tried to explain workplace discrimination to a man stops laughing]

Has Clark… met men? The same men who write 10,000-word manifestos about why they’re “going their own way”? Who create entire philosophies to explain why they can’t get dates? Who have turned “well, actually” into an art form?

This is particularly rich coming from someone defending a movement that regularly platforms men like Graham Linehan - a man so un-nuanced in his anti-trans activism that he destroyed his own career and marriage[4]. But sure, let’s pretend men are never asked to add nuance to their positions.

The Twitter Exchange That Reveals Everything

Now here’s where it gets really interesting. Clark includes a Twitter exchange that they clearly think makes them look good. Let’s break it down:

When Annoné Butler mentions their hip surgeon is a trans woman who transitioned decades ago, Clark responds:

“There is no nuance. Women’s rights are not yours to give away. Your friend is a man and must stay out of women’s spaces.”

Stop. Read that again. Clark just called a post-operative trans woman who transitioned decades ago “a man.” Someone who has lived as a woman for possibly longer than Clark has been alive. Someone who performs surgery - requiring years of training, professional certification, and the trust of vulnerable patients.

But according to Clark’s “clarity,” none of that matters. Decades of lived experience? Irrelevant. Medical transition? Meaningless. Professional expertise? Who cares - chromosomes are forever.

Butler’s response is telling:

“Of course if said person was challenged she could simply take down her knickers and would appear as you and I do.”

This crude point highlights the absurdity of Clark’s position. They’re literally advocating for excluding someone who is physically, socially, and legally female in every observable way - because of a metaphysical belief about immutable sex.

The Etymology Game That Backfires

Clark tries to get clever with etymology:

“What is nuance? Etymologically, it comes from the Latin nubes — cloud. A thing made misty, softened around the edges.”

Oh, friends. Oh no. This is what happens when you cherry-pick etymology to support your argument without - wait for it - nuance.

You know what else comes from Latin? “Clarity” - from “clarus,” meaning “clear, bright, loud”[5]. Not “correct.” Not “true.” Just loud. Which pretty much sums up Clark’s entire approach. Let’s look at this claim in its entirety:

Yes, Clark is technically correct that "nuance" can be traced back to the Latin "nubes" (cloud). But here's the deliciously ironic part they left out: "Nuance" actually comes to us from French, where it means "shade of a color, subtle distinction"[6, 12]. The word evolved from describing how colors blend and transition gradually - from "nuer," meaning "to shade colors by gradual transition, blend, match."

The etymological note even explains: "The association of a word for 'cloud' with gradation of color apparently comes from the perception that the color of an object is weakened when mist passes over it."

So nuance isn't about obscuring truth - it's about recognizing gradations and subtle distinctions. It's about seeing the full spectrum instead of just black and white.

In other words, Clark just gave us a perfect demonstration of what happens when you present facts without nuance: you end up telling only part of the truth while claiming to represent the whole. They literally cherry-picked an etymology to argue against cherry-picking.

Chef's kiss

That's not clarity, friends. That's just selective reading with a thesaurus.

The False Binary of Compassion vs. Rights

Perhaps the most insidious part of Clark’s argument is the suggestion that any consideration for trans people automatically betrays women:

“I do care. But I also know that the second I prioritise male people’s feelings and safety over women’s rights, those rights are gone.”

This is catastrophizing at its finest. Women’s rights don’t evaporate because we acknowledge trans people’s humanity. We don’t lose anything by recognizing that someone who transitioned decades ago might actually be living as a woman in every meaningful sense.

This zero-sum thinking is exactly what patriarchy wants us to believe - that rights are a finite resource we must hoard rather than expand.

The Germaine Greer Memorial Award for Missing the Point

Clark admiringly quotes Germaine Greer’s famous “I don’t care” response about offending trans people. They frame this as brave truth-telling:

“Not because she was cruel, but because cruelty was assumed in the question.”

No, friends. Cruelty wasn’t assumed in the question. Cruelty was demonstrated in the answer. When someone asks if you care about the impact of your words on vulnerable people and you say “I don’t care,” that’s not brave. That’s just cruel.

First, cruelty wasn't "assumed" in the question. The interviewer was doing what journalists do - asking if a public figure considers the impact of their words on vulnerable people. That's not assuming cruelty; that's assuming basic human decency exists and might factor into someone's calculations.

When Greer said "I don't care," she wasn't being brave. She was demonstrating the casual cruelty of someone so secure in their position that they can't even pretend to give a damn about those beneath them. It's the verbal equivalent of Marie Antoinette's "let them eat cake" - except Greer actually said it.

But here's what really gets me: Clark thinks this is admirable. They write about it with the kind of breathless admiration usually reserved for actual acts of courage. You know, like standing up to power, not kicking down at people who already face discrimination, violence, and social rejection.

Let's be clear about what "I don't care" really means when you're a celebrated feminist icon speaking about a marginalized group:

• "I don't care" that trans women face epidemic levels of violence[13]

• "I don't care" that my words might contribute to a climate of hatred

• "I don't care" that young trans people have astronomical suicide rates[14]

• "I don't care" that I have a platform and my words carry weight

You know who else famously "didn't care" about the people they hurt?

• Bull Connor didn't care about Black protesters

• Anita Bryant didn't care about gay teachers

• Phyllis Schlafly didn't care about working mothers

• Every powerful person who ever crushed those beneath them while calling it principle

Not caring isn't brave when you're punching down. It's what every bully in history has done while calling themselves righteous and/or the victim.

The real kicker? Greer was a tenured professor at a prestigious university, a bestselling author, a cultural icon. The trans people she "didn't care" about offending? Many are struggling to access basic healthcare, facing employment discrimination, and fighting for the right to exist in public. But sure, Greer's the brave one here.

What Clark sees as "admirable clarity" is actually just the arrogance of someone who knows they'll never face the consequences of their words. Greer could afford not to care because she'd never be denied healthcare, fired from her job, or assaulted in a bathroom for being trans.

That's not courage. That's just privilege wearing a feminist costume.

The Real Violence of “Clarity”

Let's talk about what Clark's "clarity" actually means in practice:

• Trans women who transitioned decades ago must be excluded from women's spaces

• Trans men and non-binary people assigned female at birth should use men's facilities (where Clark admits they face violence but claims no responsibility)

• No exceptions, no nuance, no consideration of individual circumstances

This isn't clarity - it's fundamentalism wrapped in extremism.

The fundamentalism is the absolute rigidity - no exceptions, ever, for any reason. A trans woman who transitioned 40 years ago? Still excluded. Someone fleeing domestic violence? Too bad. Medical transition? Irrelevant. Social transition? Meaningless. It's binary thinking so rigid it would make a computer jealous.

The extremism is taking this rigid position to its most radical conclusion. Clark isn't just arguing for careful consideration of single-sex spaces - they're arguing for total exclusion based solely on birth assignment, regardless of any other factor. They're literally advocating to exclude people who are physically, socially, and legally women in every observable way.

This is the same black-and-white thinking that has justified every exclusion, every persecution, every "separate but equal" policy in history. When you combine fundamentalist rigidity with extremist conclusions, you get a worldview that can justify almost any cruelty in the name of "clarity."The Nuance We Actually Need

Real clarity would acknowledge:

• Trans women who’ve transitioned face discrimination and violence[7]

• Many have lived as women for decades[8]

• Excluding them from women’s spaces puts them at risk[9]

• Women’s rights and trans rights aren’t mutually exclusive[10]

• Binary thinking helps no one[11]

But that requires something Clark has declared dead: the ability to hold multiple truths simultaneously. Nuance.

The Beginning of Wisdom

Clark ends their piece saying women should be used to speaking without nuance, without apology, without consideration for others.

But here’s the thing - Cruelty isn’t clarity. Exclusion isn’t empowerment. And refusing to engage with complexity isn’t strength - it’s intellectual cowardice.

The woman whose hip surgeon is trans? She’s not betraying women by acknowledging reality. She’s demonstrating what actual clarity looks like: recognizing that someone who transitioned decades ago, practices medicine, and lives as a woman is no different than any other woman in every way that matters.

That’s not the death of nuance. That’s the birth of wisdom.

And that, friends, is the most inconvenient truth of all.

---

Footnotes:

[1] R (on the application of For Women Scotland Limited) v The Scottish Ministers [2024] UKSC 22

[2] Equality Act 2010, Schedule 3, Part 7, Sections 26-28

[3] Sex Matters. (2024). Various Press Releases Link

[4] Linehan, G. (2023). Tough Crowd. Multiple media reports on divorce proceedings citing his anti-trans activism
Link - gives impression, not to the book

[5] Oxford Latin Dictionary. (2012). Oxford University Press. Link

[6] Centre National de Ressources Textuelles et Lexicales. “Nuance.” Link

[7] Stonewall. (2018). LGBT in Britain - Trans Report Link

[8] James, S. E., et al. (2016). The Report of the 2015 U.S. Transgender Survey. National Center for Transgender Equality. PDF

[9] Ibid.

[10] Butler, J. (2021). Why is the idea of ‘gender’ provoking backlash the world over? The Guardian. Link

[11] Richards, C., et al. (2016). Non-binary or genderqueer genders. International Review of Psychiatry, 28(1), 95-102. Link

[12]Wiktionary. "Nuance." Etymology section. [Full etymological breakdown showing French origins and color gradation meaning] Link

[13] Human Rights Campaign. (2023). Fatal Violence Against the Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming Community in 2023. Link

[14] The Trevor Project. (2023). 2023 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health. Link