Author: nassim

To allow males to play on women’s sports teams or to access resources for women is a slap in the face of all women who have experienced discrimination on the basis of their sex, i.e. all women.  

Earlier this month, the all-female Iranian handball team lost to the Australian team at the Asian Handball Championship. Iranian women were made to fight against a trans-identified male–someone who has the benefit of male physiology. It’s no surprise the Iranians lost; there is a reason sports are usually separated on the basis of sex.

The transgender player on the Australian women’s handball team is Hannah Mouncey, who played on the Austrialian men’s handball team before his transition in 2016. Last year, he played for a women’s Canberra Australian football team, where a woman’s leg was broken as he tackled her. Men are generally bigger, stronger, and have a larger lung capacity than women. Taking estrogen in adulthood does not erase the physical advantages of having gone through male puberty. After Fallon Fox, a trans-identified male MMA fighter broke the skull of his female opponent, the latter said “I’ve fought a lot of women and have never felt the strength that I felt in a fight as I did that night. (…) I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”

So men are taking women’s spots and winning, sometimes breaking bones in the process. For some people this is a non-issue because transwomen ARE women. End of discussion. But what does that actually mean and entail?

Until now, the words man and women have been defined on the basis of biological sex. A woman is an adult human female, and female is the sex that produces ova. To say that transwomen are women means that we are changing the definition of woman. Gender ideologues do not have a clear, consistent proposal for what this new definition would be and when put on the spot, they opt for the circular “a woman is anyone who feels like a woman” (of course, nobody can know if they feel like a woman if there is no definition of woman to which to refer, but I digress). But the idea is usually that “woman” is to be redefined by “gender identity”, an internal and innate sense of one’s gender that gender ideologues believe we all possess.

Under this new definition, the category of woman includes both people who produce ova and people who produce sperm. The new definition of man is someone whose gender identity is male, and the category of man includes people with vaginas and people with penises. The ramification of this is that someone with a penis, a larger body and more musculature can “identify” into a woman’s sports team and compete against women who are not only substantially smaller and weaker, but who have been historically and systematically disadvantaged because of institutional sexism.

Sports are segregated on the basis of sex because of natural differences between men and women’s bodies, but sex-specific programs and resources also serve to redress – to a small extent – the disadvantages that patriarchy has imposed on women. Being able to compete professionally was until recently denied to women (in the case of tobogganing in Switzerland, as recently as 2018) and women’s sports are still underfunded.

The discrepancy in opportunities afforded to women and men, in sports as elsewhere, has been based on biological sex: someone born with a penis has not faced the same obstacles as someone born with a vagina. When the race official of the 1967 Boston Marathon tried to physically remove Kathy Switzer from the marathon, he didn’t ask her how she identified. He knew she was a biological female and that was the marathon’s official criteria for excluding her.

So where do transwomen fit into this history?

Social justice folks give great importance to hierarchies of oppression, where people who are perceived as the most oppressed are to be centered and prioritized. We are repeatedly told that transwomen are the most oppressed of women (and of all marginalized groups), but this doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Let’s start with the observation that we live in a world in which being born with a vagina comes with a host of disadvantages, starting in the womb. In a recent article, Dominican feminist Raquel Rosario Sanchez describes the rise of sex-selective abortion: Female fetuses are aborted and female babies are killed so frequently that in 2018, over 20 countries have documented sex imbalances. A report published by the United Nations Population Fund, titled, “Sex Imbalances at Birth,” says that the masculinization of demographic trends is “not a natural phenomenon but is achieved through a deliberate elimination of girls.”

Nobody knows how these babies identify, nor do they care. They are hated because of their biological sex. As Sanchez puts it, ‘Policy-makers and “gender identity” scholars may not care about biological sex, but it turns out that patriarchy does care very much about the female bodies of women and girls.’ Girls are married off to older men; sold into sex slavery; genitally mutilated; denied an education and the right to inherit property; told they are stupid; socialized to hate their bodies; objectified and sexually assaulted; excluded from careers and public space; all on the basis of being of the class of humans that produces ova. If you disagree with this, you disagree with the very founding premise of feminism. There are plenty of people who believe that females hold privilege over males, but until recently these people didn’t call themselves feminists.

Transwomen belong to the class of humans who produce sperm and were born with penises and XY chromosomes. If transwomen are women, then they are women who did not experience the same oppression as women born with XX chromosomes. If need be – for safety at night or a leg up at work for example – transwomen can choose to hide their “authentic selves” and let the world assume they are men. (A painful experience perhaps, but certainly less painful than being raped for walking home alone) In other words, if transwomen are women, they are women with male-passing privilege. If “woman” is to be a category comprised of “transwomen” (women with penises) and “ciswomen” (women with vaginas), it follows that transwomen are the most privileged of women, not the most oppressed.

When it comes to sex-specific spaces, resources and policies, one’s definition of woman is not really the problem, because changing the definition of woman does not change the rationale under which these spaces, resources and policies were created. If the words “man/woman” no longer relate to sex, then they should no longer be relevant to one’s placement in athletics. If language is to be updated, so should policy: we would segregate sports explicitly on the basis of body parts, in keeping with the whole point of sex-segregation. We’ll have teams and competitions for “people born with penises” and others for “people born with vaginas”.

“I was angry about the human talent that was lost just because it was born into a female body, and the mediocrity that was rewarded because it was born into a male one.” – Gloria Steinem

Affirmative action and resources for women exist to counter the effects of the institutional and cultural obstacles that women have faced for millennia. My grandmother, Frances Sarnat Hugle, was a Silicon Valley pioneer at a time when female engineers were an anomaly. Many of her accomplishments were erased or downplayed both in her life and her death; nonetheless, a scholarship for female engineering students was recently set up in her honor. If gender ideologues have their way, male students could be awarded the scholarship if they state that they identify as female, despite not having shared the struggles of women in STEM.

At 16, my grandmother defied the strict gender norms of her time by winning a math tournament. An article from the day illustrates the belief that girls are intellectually inferior: “Pin curls and permanents may adorn the outside of a girl’s head, but they are no sign that all is frivolity inside it. Frances Sarnat, 16, senior at Hyde Park High school, proved this yesterday when she whisked thru 36 sticklers to win the third mathematics tournament sponsored by Wilson Junior college mathematics department.”

It’s been shown that teachers are biased against girls in respect to their math ability, which in turn impedes girls from pursuing careers in STEM. Compare this to the hypothetical situation of a 16 year old transgirl in 1944. This person would have been read as male and sailed through his school years and career, he’d be welcomed in male-dominated spaces and his accomplishments readily recognized as his. After cashing in on decades of male privilege, this celebrated engineer would announce that “she” had always felt like a woman inside. If the IEEE Frances B. Hugle Scholarship is ever awarded to a male student, it will be a slap in the face of all women in STEM and an insult to my grandmother’s memory.

The concern about opening women’s spaces and resources to males is not just about transwomen, but also men who will pretend to identify as trans. There is currently no external criteria to verify who is trans (let alone a coherent and consistent definition of what trans means). Trans activists are pushing for self-declaration to be the only criteria and have made impressive headway in getting policies changed accordingly; from changing rooms to prisons to women’s colleges. It should be obvious that this can lead to men falsely declaring themselves trans to access women’s spaces and resources. This reddit post by a man asking if he should change gender on his ID to access women’s scholarships illustrates the ease and nonchalance with which men will participate in the evisceration of women’s gains.

Men are elbowing women out of our spots as they are increasingly feted as the best of women, like Caitlyn Jenner, a Glamour woman of the year. And at the same time that transactivists lobby for male access to women’s spaces and resources, men’s rights activists are fighting to dismantle women’s scholarships and programs altogether. What differentiates these movements when their activism leads to the same results? More and more it seems that transactivism is men’s rights activism in drag.

 

 

Meghan Murphy of Feminist Current has been permanently banned from Twitter for such hateful utterings as “men aren’t women” and for using “he” to refer to a trans-identified male pedophile. Please read her excellent article Twitter’s Trans-Activist Decree.

There is no scientific backing of the existence of an innate gender identity. It is purely a belief – not a fact – about the nature of the human mind or soul. (And even if gender identity were a real thing, why would it follow that we should redefine the words man and woman on the basis of this newly discovered spiritual/psychological attribute?) It’s fine to hold non-scientific beliefs, but believers should not force others to adopt these beliefs or participate in the language or rituals associated with them. To use preferred pronouns is an ideological choice and we should be free to opt in or out of it. I don’t use preferred pronouns because I don’t believe in gender identity, and furthermore I think it is a harmful belief system that reinforces sexism.

(For the uninitiated: preferred pronouns are the pronouns you want others to use when speaking about you, which may be different than those that the English language ascribes based on your sex. For example, you might be female but you see yourself as a complex person, not to be confined by one-dimensional stereotypes about women. Because you are also a sexist, you believe that other women do conform to these stereotypes, and in fact, that’s what being a woman really is! So you ask people to refer to you as “they”, a gender-neutral term that indicates that you are neither an archetypical man nor woman, but a full human.) 

To mandate speech that upholds a mystical belief system, and to persecute those who reject or critique that belief system, is religious fundamentalism. While it could be argued that Twitter is a private company and can do what it wants, companies like Twitter and Facebook have effectively taken over the public arena and by censoring feminists, they are excluding feminists from public discourse. And this goes beyond tech companies. In New York  City for example, employers and landlords can be fined for “misgendering” someone. This flies in the face of the separation of church and state.

The heretics of this new religion are mostly female, and the men who vocally reject gender identity ideology are not subjected to the same vilification and abuse. While I rage at the misogyny of this movement, I am more alarmed by the sheer stupidity of gender ideologues and those who support them. This is what Idiocracy warned us about (from Meghan Murphy):

Everything is ID politics, emotional manipulation and histrionics. The capacity for a logical reasoning and rational debate is completely absent. Having only moved to the US in 2010, I can’t say whether this capacity was always lacking in the US or whether this is a recent occurrence. What I can say is that I discovered that in many ways the American “left” now embodies the worst stereotypes of right-wing red state dwellers: populist, anti-science, anti-woman, anti-intellectual…

Liberals guffaw at flat Earthers for prioritizing feelz over facts, but they condone harassing and beating up women who question that a man is really a woman because he claims to have a female soul. And now, while right-wingers aim to take away women’s ability to make decisions about our  female bodies, the self-proclaimed left is leading witch-hunts against women who believe that our oppression is linked to being born in said bodies. A mystical belief system is becoming the basis of law and policy, and women are the casualty–kinda reminds me of my country of origin, Iran. And throughout my lifetime, Westerners have also pointed to Iran as backwards. It’s time for liberals to take a hard look at what they are supporting.

A couple weeks ago, I was privy to bits of conversation of a driver who shouted his rage at a woman who was on speakerphone. He yelled at her to “go to the apartment” and that he would see her there. At the next traffic light I heard him shout “I’m going to fuck you over so bad” and then her cry “why” sounding confused and scared, like she wanted to calm him down and genuinely didn’t understand why he was so angry.

The man was in a truly frightening state and I feared for the woman–I still do. Maybe I should have done something but I didn’t know what to do. Can you call the cops in such a situation? It seemed that the woman lived with this man, but I still hope that she had a way of avoiding him that night and hopefully forever.

Too many women are incapable of leaving or avoiding the men who abuse them and the figures show it. Every day in the US more than three women are killed by a current or former romantic partner. In response to widespread male violence, second-wave feminists pooled their resources and created domestic shelters. These are usually all-female spaces, for women and staffed by women, where women can escape from abusive men and bring their children if need be.

This was an important win for women but, like our other sex-segregated spaces, we are losing them to the cult of gender. A women’s shelter would normally be a safe space from men who might be determined to exert their perceived right to violence against their partners, and from other men who might harass or abuse women. However, with the current move to replace sex with gender ID and gender ID being verified by a simple declaration, these spaces will no longer be safe.

A man who is outraged by some perceived slight from his partner will often go to great lengths to “discipline” or get back at her. With gender self-ID, all he has to do is say that he identifies as a woman, and poof! He is one. As such, he suddenly belongs in women’s spaces and any woman who objects is a horrible bigot who should die in a fire.

It’s not only the men we know that we need to worry about; it is indisputable that women face systematic harassment from strangers as well. We are entitled to protect ourselves from all men, especially when we are at our most vulnerable, for example homeless or in prison. A recent case in Fresno, California, shows how gender self-ID removes this right from women.

Nine homeless women filed a lawsuit against a homeless shelter in Fresno because they were forced to shower with a trans-identified male who sexually harassed them. According to the charity that runs the shelter, federal law requires them to treat anybody who identifies as a woman as a woman. The shelter also requires women to shower in groups. It wasn’t hard to predict that this would lead to problems.

In Canada, two women were kicked out of a homeless shelter after raising concerns over a male resident. According to one of the women, “He wants to become a woman, I mean that is his choice but when a man comes into a women’s shelter who still has a penis and genitals he has more rights than we do.”

In their eagerness to be progressive, policy-makers are hopping on a trend that is anything but, and throwing society’s most vulnerable women under the bus. Women’s concerns have been ignored not only in broader “progressive” circles, but also by the very organizations that are supposed to work for them. This is why in the UK, female survivors of male violence have written an open letter to all women’s organizations asking them to support female-only spaces and to reject current proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act, which would see the legal replacement of sex with gender self-ID.

Until now, the words man and woman have been defined on the basis of biological reality and the study of male violence against women has used these definitions. Even if you believe that there exists some internal essence or other non-biological trait that should redefine “man” and “woman”, it does not follow that oppression and systemic violence now fall along these new lines.

People with penises are known to frequently perpetrate violence against people with vaginas. “Women’s shelters” were created as a response to this and were named as such at a time when it was assumed that a woman was a person with a vagina. Redefining the words man and woman in no way changes this reality and in no way negates the need for people with vaginas to have spaces that are separate from people with penises.

Like shelters, the creation of women’s bathrooms was also a feminist win, as the absence of separate bathrooms had previously impeded women from participating in the public sphere. Reports from areas that lack separate bathrooms show that our need today for private spaces is as great as always, but gender self-ID allows any man to identify his way into female spaces, effectively doing away with them.

This week, a trans-identified male was charged with several counts of sexual assault against inmates at a women’s prison. The point of sharing these stories is not to vilify men who identify as trans or to paint them as particularly predatory. It is to remind those who have embraced gender ideology that men as a whole are systematically predatory and abusive and that women have a right to exclude any and all men from our spaces so that we might be safe, heal, organize, participate in the public sphere and so on. While individual men can be lovely, they don’t get to opt out of the category of man by stating that they identify otherwise.

Describing the disappearance of lesbian (but not gay) spaces, Susan Cox writes: ‘It appears that even though the project of “queering” is, we’re told, about going beyond gender, the movement disproportionately affects females in negative ways. (…) We can make progressive-sounding pronouncements about certain spaces being inclusive, non-binary, and gender-neutral all we want, but these declarations do not magically disappear the material relations of power between the sexes foundational to our social world.’

People with penises belong to a class that oppresses people with vaginas as a class, regardless of their beliefs, self-perception or wishes that it were otherwise. By putting the demands of males, based on a subjective sense of self, over the rights of females to privacy and protection, we uphold male supremacy. Male violence against women has never stopped being a problem and any truly liberatory politics will condemn the erosion of the boundaries that women have painstakingly erected.