Last night I attended an
excellent panel discussion organised by the redoubtable Woman’s Place UK, on
the subject of the proposed changes to the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to allow
for legal sex changes to be certified by the state on the basis of self-certification
or, also known as self-declaration. Self-certification is being demanded by (some)
transgender rights organisations as a replacement for the current system of
medical diagnosis and social transition followed by approval by a special government
panel. I oppose these changes, but will not rehash my objections to them here. The
WAPOW submission to the House of Commons Women and Equalities Committee
Transgender Inquiry is still a relevant and useful resource to understand some
of these objections.
The atmosphere in Birmingham last
night was collegiate, inclusive, and for the most part optimistic, which made
me really happy. There was, however, disagreement, not among the panel funnily
enough, but between the panel and the audience, about a point made by the first
speaker, Dr. Rebecca Reilly-Cooper, about the importance – or as you shall see,
lack thereof – of the focus on the term “woman” and the question of who is and
is not a “real” woman. This is a question that exercises both feminists and
trans thinkers, and views range from the patently circular “a woman is
anyone who says they are a woman, therefore anyone who says they are a woman is
a real woman” to the more intuitively compelling but nevertheless
unsatisfactory “a woman is an adult human female and an adult human female only”.
I understand from reports on social media and from friends who attended that a feminist event held the previous night in Parliament to discuss similar issues took the latter claim very seriously, and that
strong points were made in support of the position that we must never relinquish
our identity to activists seeking to colonise the language of womanhood. It’s a
very live topic, in other words.
I was one of what seemed like a
minority in the room to agree with Rebecca that the preoccupation with this
issue of terminology is a tactical mistake; furthermore I believe that is a
political irrelevance. Given that this is such an important issue for many of
my sisters, I thought I ought to set out my arguments in support of this view. To
wit, my conviction rests on two pillars:
I.
The critical underlying
contention of anti-feminist and anti-woman thinking is not that women aren’t
really female or biology is not a thing or that penis can be non-male: it is
that women do not have a coherent existence as a political class. This contention
is age old and absolutely not an innovation of the trans debate. As Gerda
Lerner points out in her seminal The Creation of Patriarchy, one of the main
deprivations inflicted upon women by patriarchy is the denial of history: not
only is the telling of human history monopolised by men and the cast of
characters largely male, but women are seen as not having any intergenerational
continuity that could be woven together into a history in the first place. We
are cast as material, fleshy, and of the here and now. The illusion of the “naturalness”
of the reproductive function to which women have been forcibly limited is
maintained, among other things, by the insistence on the fact that there is no
shared womanity that is intergenerational, heritable, collective and narrative.
A group without a shared history has
no shared identity, and no ability to organise as a class. The denial of
history serves a deprivation of politics: it shrinks women’s concerns to the
personal, the domestic and the individual. There is a reason why two concepts
were keystones of the 1960’s women liberation movement: “the personal is
political” and “women are a sex class”. Those women understood extremely well
that the first and most important obstacle to overcome when fighting for our
rights and liberation is the one that says there is no “we” and therefore no “our”.
What had been cast as the narrow personal concerns of atomised individuals is
in fact a large scale political injustice against a recognisable class. The fact
that this insight was both contested and incompletely inherited by future
generations of activists is substantially responsible for the parlous state we
now find ourselves in, whereby self-styled "feminist" men see our rights and
recognition of our humanity as personal favours they can bestow upon individual
women rather than a legitimate political demand of a class that makes up half the human race.
Even before the most recent bout
of contestation of language and definition we were, I believe, distracted from
the critical project of revitalising and strengthening the legitimacy of women
as a political constituency with diverse but interlinked demands and needs:
safety, dignity, personhood. Now that we are taking this already-diminished
momentum into contestation of language, we have fewer resources still to
spend on policy-driven demands such as universal childcare, proper operation of
the justice system, recognition and support of unpaid labour, the abolition of the sex trade, equal participation in reproductive effort as
far as possible by men and so forth. When we are fighting about what we are
called, or about what another group is allowed to call itself, our eyes are off
the ball and we risk missing (and I think have been overlooking) the danger of
having not the descriptive term, but the legitimacy of that critical starting
point, the “we”, kicked out from under us. It doesn't matter what anyone calls us; what matters is that we don't lose sight of the fact that there is an "us".
II.
On every step on the ladder of escalating
demands from people purporting to represent all trans individuals, there has
been an intense contestation about language. It is almost 5 years since I first wrote something against using the term “cis”, and though I still believe it is a
degrading and victim blaming insult to women, I think that I was blind at the
time to the fact that objecting to it is a distraction activity from the
broader threat. “Cis” is now completely mainstream; it’s made it into the style
guides of the Guardian and the New Yorker, into government guidelines and court
judgements, into handbooks for clinicians and educators. The ship has sailed.
But the armada didn’t go home: the next battleground that opened up was about
the legitimacy of the word “female” (I am aware that there were additional skirmishes
along the way, but do not intend a full history of the language wars here).
Almost none of us had encountered the argument “binary
biology is outdated” or “humans have more than one sex, deal with it” before
about 2015. It just wasn’t a widespread thing. But when the battle over “cis”
was won, from the point of view of certain people whose priority is to encroach
upon the political cohesion and sense of solidarity of women, the war
continued. Us radfems tried every trick in the book to avoid falling into the
holes dug for us when describing women’s bodies: we used “natal women”, then “females”,
then “biological females”. Meanwhile at the other end of the spectrum usage shifted
from “cis women” to “non-men” to “uterus-bearers” and “lactators”. The
quicksand of allowable terminology never seemed to have a bottom.
Well, I’m calling it: there is no end
game to this arms race. The point of it is not to correct or perfect the
English language into some recognised ideal of inclusivity and
intersectionality, the point of it is to waste our time and energies on an
ever-escalating one-up tournament in which every time we think we’ve found a
new word that, will, at last, get us left alone, we get attacked again and have
to start over. Some feminists responded to this insight by planting their flag on the word “woman” and not budging: simply refusing to
acknowledge any changes in what is considered socially legitimate language, and insisting on the objective truth of the language we used in earlier decades.
I completely understand this
approach, and am very sympathetic to it. It is natural to think that,
regardless of where one is in a campaign, the original frontier is the one we
should never, ever have retreated from. But there’s a practical problem in trying to live by this dictum, because if the enemy is outside the walls of your city, it’s pretty tricky to
somehow sneak out and go back to defending the border of your province or
country; it’s just not where the war is, and you’ll be fighting shadows.
More importantly to me, however, is the fact that this particularly idiotic war is not of our choosing. I see us being like WWI soldiers, dying in the trenches for the sake of a few yards of muddy
flatland neither side is going to gain anything by possessing. I say (and this
of course is where the land war analogy breaks down irreparably, and a good
thing too): let them have the bloody Somme. Let’s just walk away from this
battlefield we didn’t chose and go back to working on what we need to be
working on: thinking and writing about women, our social and medical needs, our
subjective experience, our history; lobbying governments, cities, schools,
universities and hospitals to institute and enforce policies that are needed to
make the material conditions of our lives better; and being in sisterhood with
each other across our differences and disagreements. This war was designed from the start to be unwinnable by either side, because its ultimate purpose is not to gain ground but to bog women down in one place to prevent them from attacking more strategic positions.
You will notice, I hope, that
such a tactical retreat would by no means impede or slow down the fight against, to pick a current
example, the inclusion of self-declaration in any reform of the GRA or against the
removal of the single-sex services exemption in the 2010 Equality Act. The vital
work of protecting legislation which, as Debbie Hayton convincingly argued last
night, is also important for the safety and acceptance of trans people, does not depend on us all agreeing on the terminology we like best,
or on policing other people’s use of terminology to describe
themselves, however silly or even offensive we find those uses to be.
“Language creates reality” is the
natural terrain of postmodernists (#NotAllPostmodernists), queer theorists and dilettantes
too idle to reform anything other than what words other people get to use on
Twitter. It’s not where radical feminist should be making some desperate last stand.
It would make me very sad to see us not manage to move past this business of “who
is and isn’t a real woman whatever the hell that even means” to continue our work
of creating a world in which the patently real, objectively wonderful, commonsensically
recognisable political class Women can flourish and thrive.
