Written by Dee Searle
The recent tensions about proposed changes to
the 2004 Gender Recognition Act - to allow people identifying as transgender to
legally change their gender without medical diagnosis or other evidence - could
(or maybe should) be a gift for conspiracy theorists.
Among the most prominent theories is that the
proposals are the work of private medicine providers and pharmaceutical
companies keen to cash in on the likely resulting increase in demand for gender
reassignment surgery, drugs and other treatment. Another is that it’s a plot by
the right to distract the left and liberals from effectively challenging the
Government’s incompetence and all-round viciousness by occupying us with splits
and hand-wringing about how to critique the proposed changes without appearing
to be against trans rights.
Yet another is that the security forces
(that’s right - those folks who infiltrated and had relationships with
environmental activists in the 1990s) are manipulating young politicos to
passionately promote a highly individualistic strand of identity politics, to
take energy away from tackling climate crisis, loss of biodiversity,
inequality, growing international instability and other bigger strategic
issues. Or that the ‘trans extremists’ (as some commentators have dubbed them)
are misogynists, keen to undermine the gains made by women in recent decades
and reassert global male dominance
Whatever the underlying impetus, the upshot is
that there has been precious little thoughtful, in-depth discussion on the left
about the implications of the proposed new rules.
While there can be no denying that trans
people deserve the right to live in peace and security in their desired sex or
gender, it was intriguing that the trans lobby, as well as many of those
campaigning for lesbians, gays and bisexuals, leapt so quickly to support the
draft legislation and to attack as transphobic anyone who suggested that it
would be good to look at the issues in more detail.
The response to even the mildest of Guardian editorials has been claims from trans people that they are being made to feel unsafe or that their very existence is being challenged, while ignoring the fact that anyone questioning the changes are denounced as TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and subjected to violent threats on social media.
The response to even the mildest of Guardian editorials has been claims from trans people that they are being made to feel unsafe or that their very existence is being challenged, while ignoring the fact that anyone questioning the changes are denounced as TERFs (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminists) and subjected to violent threats on social media.
The issue has caused almost as big a rift in
the Green Party as allegations of anti-Semitism have in the Labour Party. Trans
activists called the police to disperse a group of three middle-aged women
outside the Green Party’s autumn conference who were attempting to give out
leaflets providing a feminist perspective on the proposals. And Labour has not
escaped entirely: trans lobbying resulted in Jeremy Corbyn declaring his
support for the legal changes with the result (according to Labour Women for
Women’s Rights) that women are leaving the party.
The government’s consultation has now closed,
but several pertinent questions remain unanswered, such as:
What is the motivation?
It’s bizarre that a particularly
right-wing Tory government, preoccupied with Brexit and the mess caused by some
of its previous legislation, such as Universal Credit, would spend
Parliamentary time on a minority rights issue. The consultation document and
accompanying factsheets read as though they have been drafted by trans
activists rather than lawyers or civil servants. The government doesn’t have a
track record in doing the right thing. What are they seeking to gain from
relaxing procedures to change gender identity?
What are the implications of self-certification for trans people?
At least one group of
transsexuals has expressed ‘deep concern’ about the proposed weakening of
controls on who can self-select their gender. Their concerns include the
blurring of differences between transsexual and transgender people.
They state that transsexual is a
“medically diagnosed condition from childhood. It involves acute stress from
knowing that psychologically that person is of opposite sex to the physiology
of their body. A transsexual person knows that you cannot change biological sex
but extensive psychotherapy and medical assistance alter their body to match
with the mind and live in harmony.
A large majority have had surgical alteration.” Whereas a transgender person has “a desire to adopt the lifestyle of the opposite sex, full time or part time, often expressing this via clothing and makeup. The desire to have surgery or other medical treatments is much less common (some suggest as low as 10 per cent). Few wish to see doctors or be psychiatrically evaluated. Some transition back and forth.”
A large majority have had surgical alteration.” Whereas a transgender person has “a desire to adopt the lifestyle of the opposite sex, full time or part time, often expressing this via clothing and makeup. The desire to have surgery or other medical treatments is much less common (some suggest as low as 10 per cent). Few wish to see doctors or be psychiatrically evaluated. Some transition back and forth.”
What are the implications for women’s protected spaces?
There has already been at least
one case of a self-identified trans woman prisoner being transferred to a
women’s prison (although she was still physically male) where she sexually
assaulted two female prisoners.
People working with the homeless
report having to deal with male rough sleepers who self-identify as women to
gain access to women’s shelters. This is sometimes because women’s shelters
tend to be nicer and safer, but could also be to gain access to vulnerable
women. Even if it’s the former, many homeless women are fleeing violent men, so
being confronted by a biological male in a supposedly women-only space is
likely to be traumatic.
More broadly, self-identified trans
women would be able to use female toilets and changing rooms, and to access
facilities, such as youth clubs, gym and swimming sessions, reserved for women
and girls. These sessions are often the only opportunity for women and girls
from some religious and cultural backgrounds to participate. It’s highly likely
that they would not be able to attend in the presence of of trans females who
were physically male.
Where are the voices of female-to-male transgender people?
Almost all of the public support
for self-identification has come from male-to-female transgender people but
almost none from the female-to-male trans community. Is that because they
understand the risks to women’s safe spaces, which they possibly have
experience of?
What about male behaviour?
Trans activists claim to be the most persecuted of any minority in Britain. Given that these claims come from male-to-female trans people, presumably the persecution comes from men. Yet the proposed amendments to the 2004 Gender Recognition Act do nothing to address male violence or attitudes. If the activists were genuinely concerned about enabling trans people to live in their desired gender, safe from aggression or abuse, surely they should be more concerned about tackling the source of the problems. However, none of the trans lobby groups has actually mentioned male behaviour.
Regardless of the worth of the proposed
amendments (and any possible underlying malign agenda), they have caused deep
divisions in left-leaning political parties and campaign groups such as
Stonewall. The real question is not whether transgender people should self
identify (or whether Jeremy Corbyn is anti-Semitic) but how can the (green)
left build its confidence and develop a robust overarching political agenda,
while being inclusive of (but not taken over by) special interest groups.
Unless we can do that, we will continue to be
vulnerable to emotional pressure from the loudest voices, which saps energy
from the challenging task of creating a fairer society that can live within the
planet’s resources.
Dee
Searle is a member of Camden Green Party and a Green Left Supporter
Good article apart from invoking the expression ‘conspiracy theorist’. Enough damage has already been done to honest enquiry by the CIA linking this to edge of society, tin hat wearers without sensible people relaying it for them.
ReplyDeleteYou should read Whipping Girl by Julia Serano, which would, I think, address many of your concerns. There are many problems with your article, as it assumes that the problem is challenging the status quo, not the status quo itself. I agree that men may be the greatest problem and that is something voiced by, contrary to your assertion, many transwomen. You also seem to have fallen for the trope that a tiny, persecuted minority can somehow wield power over the majority, which is plain false. The idea that a "trans lobby" somehow shuts down everyone else's voices is demonstrably wrong, as a google search would immediately demonstrate. Your article here is also a case in point against the idea that the "trans lobby" somehow shuts down any dissenting voice when article after article across the media attacks transwomen. You also conflate this media onlsaught with silence from trans people about transmens' experience. This is again wrong, the silence surrounding transmen does not come from transmen themselves, it comes from misogyny. The idea that a woman would want to become a man makes sense, who wouldn't want to be a man in a man's world where the ideal is masculine? But why would a man want to be a woman? Julia Serano refers to this as trans-misogyny. There is no equivalent prejudice for transmen. At the heart of this is unconscious privilege and entitlement, and this argument in various forms has occurred whenever a minority demands equality. The clamour becomes about a "clash of rights", "freedoms under threat". The same was said when black people began demanding civil rights. White people's "freedoms" and "rights" were being threatened. It really saddens me as a member of the green party that this discussion is being had in this way, that members of such a party are falling for bigotry and prejudice dressed up as heartfelt concern. That one trans person sent to a women's prison is an indictment against an entire, disparate group.
ReplyDeleteWhat saddens me is that you are immediately moving to shut down discussion because you don’t like the parameters.
DeleteYou are not being truthful when you talk about one trans person being sent to a women’s prison. It’s a much higher number. There has been one instance of one being removed because he sexually assaulted women.
Don’t use the civil rights movement as an analogy. Black people never claimed to be white people. They wanted rights AS black people. Feminists never claimed to be men to get equal rights. Homosexual people most certainly did not claim to be straight.
You are the one ‘falling for bigotry and prejudice dressed up as heartfelt concern’ if you approve of the chemical and physical castration of gay boys, or the sterilisation and mutilation of lesbian teenagers.
The transactivists use the language of civil rights to confuse and threaten dissenters. Look deeper, read more widely. Follow logical thought processes.
Think about what happens to homosexual people if we remove the concept of biological sex. What happens to lesbians if they say they do not wish to have sex with trans women? What happens to them now? Are you aware of the abuse? Have you heard of the cotton ceiling?
And now, people who wouldn’t let their child decide what to eat for dinner, are now proudly showing off their trans toddlers. Think about this: toddler can really know that they are the ‘wrong’ sex, and they are allowed to ‘change’ sex, then how much of a leap is it to give them ‘autonomy’ over their body? And when someone claims that same toddler made a ‘decision’ to have sex, who is to say they are wrong?
And women’s scholarships, sporting teams, positions in employment quotas, political quotas, women’s officer roles, are already being taken by men who claim to be women. How can these men represent women when then have never done any of the things that are part of the biological sex experiences exclusive to women (not all women do these things but ONLY women can do these things) menstruated, gone through female puberty, been subjected to sex-based oppression, had children, not had children, been infertile, had an abortion, been subjected to FGM, been raped as a ‘curative’ for lesbianism, been denied access based on their female bodies, been threatened with specific threats against their female body.
LGB are sexualities, I (intersex) is a physical condition. These are definable realities. Trans is not and transactivists deliberately seek to keep it ambiguous so they can cry bigotry.
well said, thank you.
Deletetransgender should not be a “medically diagnosed condition from childhood" as in childhood, children can't tell what they want to be until they get past puberty. But now they are being put on puberty blockers and sterilised.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this, Dee. Also... the implications that fall out from confusing biological sex with gender re. reinforcement of gender stereotyping is hugely concerning and another reason why older feminists are opposed to self ID. If a woman isn't defined by biology then what does define a woman? Tricky question... could it be the desire to buy and use all the products marketed to women, from make up to face/body changing surgery? Or perhaps to be emotional? To be caring? To want to play with dolls when small? Or to be any of the stereotypes so aggressively marketed in this neo liberal capitalist, patriarchal society... stereotypes that start with 'Peppa Pig' and roll on and on. I remember in the 70s talks into the night about men needing to open up, be emotional, care, look after children... dress how they like, not be macho etc. The need for men and women to be encouraged to break out of gender stereotypes for the benefit of all.
ReplyDeleteAnd another thing... maybe the reason Tories reckon Self ID is worth supporting is because it's cheap. It does away with having to provide services to help and support trans people, services that are currently failing and inadequate because of austerity.
That just about sums it up. Then there's the disappearance of women -only sports, as self-declared Trans individuals with their stronger and larger male bodies are allowed to compete directly with women. Already happened in at least two sporting events.
ReplyDeleteThe most rounded and thoughtful comment on this issue I have yet read
ReplyDeleteThank you, Dee, for a very important and thoughtful contribution to this discussion. I so wish that we could have an open discussion in which everyone's voice could be heard without attacks and threats.
ReplyDeleteBut from my point of view one of the most signficant questions is the one about gender stereotyping which takes away the possibilty of people (whatever their biology) living the way they want to live (i.e. it's ok to be a woman and a crane driver; it's ok to be a man and a nurse; it's ok to do embroidery even if you're a man; or not to do embroidery even if you're a woman). The surgical and medical intervention into all of this is to deny society the possibilty of a non-stereotyped paradigm.