Kiri Tunks is an activist in the NUT, writing in a personal capacity, in the Morning Star.
THE government’s announcement that it will consult on a change in the
law on gender self-identity means that a fierce debate that has, until
now, been taking place off-stage is being thrust into the public arena.
One
argument is that a change in the law is not up for debate and that
anyone raising concerns or challenging the proposal is transphobic.
Such a position will not help to accommodate the discussions which are vital for any social, political or legal shift.
The
relaxing of any legal definition of what it is to be a man or a woman
could render sex discrimination law meaningless and any imposition of
change without winning people to it is likely to cause a
counter-productive backlash.
Neither is it helpful to say that these proposed changes only affect the trans community because it fundamentally isn’t true.
The
ability to define one’s own “gender” will undermine the legal
characteristic of “sex” and could lead to serious implications for women
and their ability to fight sex discrimination and oppression.
It
is also likely to impact on society’s ability to plan for and
accommodate the needs of its population and the way it attempts to even
out inequality.
Concerns about access to single-sex spaces are
often dismissed as unjustified moral panic. The truth is that this
society has failed to ensure equality of treatment for women and girls:
single-sex spaces exist to try to ameliorate the oppression women face.
Removing
legal exceptions will mean that services already under attack from
austerity politics will be further hampered in their ability to deliver
for the people they were created to serve.
If necessary, where services do not exist for a specific group then they must be created and we must all fight for that.
The
demand for self-identity has huge implications for all of us and how we
are defined. And, because women are an oppressed group (whose fight for
equality has never been won or sustained) it is women who are most
affected by the proposals.
It is also the women who have raised
concerns who have been attacked as bigots for speaking out — often by
men whose rights are simply not affected in the same way.
This
debate about identity is one that necessarily affects everyone in
society. Unless you are someone who thinks there is no such thing…
The
growth in identity politics is becoming an atomising force, creating
division among groups of people who have much in common and could be a
common force for change.
My belief is that our individual
identities are made up of many complex parts — self-expression and
self-identity are part of that. But individuals are also part of society
and the terms we use to describe ourselves necessarily involve some
level of common agreement.
Terms that are used to describe
people of and from specific groups must be determined by all the people
in those groups. But the term “woman” is now being defined in several
ways. For the majority of women it is still determined by biology; for
many transwomen it is by a strongly held belief or “knowing.” In this
context, how can the term mean the same thing to both?
Natally
born women now find any number of terms being used to define them (most
of which have not involved any discussion inside the women’s movement):
“cis,” “non-men,” “non-transwomen,” “vagina owners,” “menstruators,”
“non-prostate owners.”
There is also a growth in the
substitution of “queer” for “lesbian” or “dyke.” These terms, we are
told, are being applied in an attempt to be inclusive. The term “vagina
owners” was used in a recent article on anal sex in Teen Vogue, a
magazine primarily catering to teenage girls and young women.
The
diagrams accompanying the article had removed the clitoris and the
vulva — a journalistic excision that symbolises the erasure that women
are starting to feel. This doesn’t feel very inclusive.
Words
that exclude and erase women’s experience and opinions cannot ever hope
to be universally adopted. They are more likely to insult and offend.
For
a movement that prides itself on inclusivity, it feels like, once
again, women are the exception. When we express our disquiet, we are
abused or silenced, like the FGM campaigner who was called a Terf (trans
exclusionary radical feminist) for referencing female genitalia.
Terms
and definitions must be based in some kind of material reality that is
apparent to more than just an individual. If “woman” or “man” mean
different things to different people then the terms become meaningless —
and useless. Women, who are told that our biology is not female when we
feel that is what makes us female, are left with no term to describe
ourselves. And yet, the sex oppression we face does not disappear.
Another
trend is the casual substitution of “gender” for “sex” when they mean
very different things. At the very least, this is a misrepresentation of
the law under which “sex” is a protected characteristic because of the
discrimination and oppression which women face. Yet the debate around
identity often dismisses “sex” and insists on the term “gender.” This is
certainly the case in lots of the NGOs that have sprung up to deliver
sex and relationships education (SRE) in schools, but is also the case
in other organisations, including big corporations and government
departments.
Gender roles are socially constructed and are commonly formed in stereotypical ways that reinforce discrimination.
Sex
is biological and the fight of feminists going back decades has been to
challenge the assumption that one’s sex should determine one’s options
or behaviour.
There are people in this debate who claim that sex
is also a social construct and cite biological variations to show that a
binary does not exist. To accept this is to ignore the biological
reality of billions of people. It does not challenge our social
expectations; nor does it help women deal with the oppression they face.
Instead, the terms they have had to name that oppression are taken from
them; the tools with which to fight are rendered useless.
Women
who suffer FGM, sexual harassment or rape cannot identify out of these
attacks. Women who live in poverty, cannot access education or equal pay
at work cannot identify into wealth or equality. Sex data on issues as
diverse as pensions and pay or domestic violence become harder to
collect and use as part of our battle for equality.
This is a
woman’s rights issue because women’s rights are still not won. We are
still fighting a battle for universal access to reproductive rights
services or abortions — look at Northern Ireland or the ridiculous
moralising from Boots over the morning after pill.
And yet women
are being told they cannot talk about “a woman’s right to choose” or
refer to vaginas or ovaries because to do so is transphobic. I recently
had an Abortion Rights flyer removed from a Facebook “feminist” group
for these very reasons.
We also know that abortion rights groups
are coming under pressure to use the term “pregnant people,” but this
term obscures an ongoing, historic battle by women globally to assert
control over their bodies.
To say that all of this is
scaremongering amounts to the age-old advice to women not to worry their
pretty little heads; that someone else will take care of it. Well, as a
feminist, I think women must be in charge of our own destiny. Women
must be allowed to define the terms that name them and their experience.
Any change to those terms must be agreed as part of a collective understanding or the terms lose all meaning and all impact.
To
deny any group or individual in that group the right to be part of a
discussion about their identity is insulting and will result in a
failure of the great liberation we are all seeking.
To get there
we will need comradely dialogue and understanding — something a trade
union movement committed to equality, with a majority female membership,
is surely well-placed to facilitate.
******
Posts
