Women’s rights in the far left — are feminists actually neo-fascists?

On ‘no debate’ in the far left movement and academia, and the burning question — are trans women women?“

1) Freedom of thought in academic and left intellectual circles.

Despite the capitalist patriarchal status quo manufacturing consent and ideological hegemony through various institutions, there have always been places where radical thinking and debate has taken place. Two of these were radical left intellectual circles and academia. The past few years I have seen both these places a turn away from critical debate and use convoluted arguments to justify ignoring, and participating in, a backlash against feminism.

My political background

I come from a political perspective known loosely as autonomist Marxism, or the libertarian left, with influences from anarchism. Myself and my friends and comrades were never going to follow any party line. Influenced by the Situationists, we prided ourselves in being the ones who questioned all authorities. We did have basic agreements between ourselves, such as a broadly Marxist view of economics, history and power, but these too could be criticised and updated as they frequently are, for example by feminists and black activist thinkers. Within those parameters, anything and everything was up for debate. Many of us were part of the anti-capitalist movement. We made it up as we went along, vigorously critiquing each other as we tried out ideas and put them into action. Through that critique and discussion we got better, sharper, made more effective interventions.

With these comrades I have discussed: the role of the state and nationalist demands; the value or not of transitional demands; grassroots class-based workers’ intervention; the party form; direct action; unions; sex work and its comparison to other work; the links between ecology and economics, and so on. The institution of marriage and the family, the control of sexuality, and assumed moral norms were all critiqued. Many of us embraced the idea of polyamory and bisexuality as a way of reaching out for a freer way to love (with varying degrees of success). Our friendships, communal houses and chosen wider families were prioritised, sustaining us as we built new forms of social reproduction. We were therefore natural allies to queer political concerns with many comrades active in growing queer movements.

The “trans debate”

An intensification of reporting about transgender concerns became noticeable a few years ago. Reading articles about children transitioning (often reported as being because the child did not conform to fixed gender stereotypes) accompanied by prescriptions of puberty blockers, made me dubious and curious. It did not sit right with me that people could be born in the wrong body.

As ever, I turned to my comrades to discuss my concerns. I was surprised when the reaction by some was: ‘by othering trans people you are contributing to them being murdered’. But mostly, it was surprising to me because where was the robust discussion I was used to? The listening to my points and taking them apart, showing me my false premises, explaining coherent theories that I might not know or agree with, but that nonetheless made sense.

So in 2018 I wrote an open letter with my thoughts and questions: not about the existence or rights of trans people, but about the wisdom of ‘hormones on demand’ for young people, or the extent to which trans women are literally women. In response I received lots of messages from people saying they agreed with me, but were not going to say so in public. A few people said outright that I must not mention such views around them or in a political setting. But no-one engaged with the text as the start of a debate. I could hardly believe it. ‘No debate’ was not in our culture. What was so different this time? This is something that still puzzles me.

Then, on a ‘feminist’ organising Whatsapp group, some of us questioned whether we should have as a speaker at a meeting we were organising, a trans woman who had posted on her public Facebook page ‘next time you punch a terf get a manicure and claw that fucker’. The response was a meme of a high heel grinding into the grass with the text ‘the sweet feel of terf underfoot’.

The attack on Helen Steel at the 2017 London Anarchist Book Fair (for intervening in an exchange between ‘TRAs’ and feminists) was followed by threats to boycott any bookfair that did not thoroughly vet all literature, speakers and stalls for signs of wrongthink on this issue. This has never happened before — not over religion (the LABF had Jewish, Christian and Quaker groups despite many thinking that religion is the opium of the masses), not over violence as a tactic (peace groups sharing space with Class War), not anything. The book fair was an annual festival of ideas and debate. And books. With in-depth nuanced arguments in them. The book fair has so far not been able to take place since this event.

The damage done to my movement has been a tragedy. Trans activists have achieved what even the spy cops didn’t manage in terms of spreading mistrust and paranoia and breaking bonds forged through years of struggle; through days of war and nights of love.

Academia and the University College Union election.

The other place where open and rigorous debate is supposed to happen is in academia. Academia was never meant to be a safe space where your ideas aren’t questioned. It’s where you learn to hone your arguments and use evidence to back them up.

In response to many gender critical feminist academics being bullied, threatened, silenced and dismissed, on grounds of fabricated ‘transphobia’, academics within their workers’ union (UCU) campaigned to ensure the union was defending these women. Some women stood for election and put the right to academic freedom in their election address.

I was shocked that some people I had considered comrades from the political milieu I described above wrote a counter “Statement on Academic Freedom and Trans Inclusion”.

Like an Orwellian take on academic freedom it states:

“In the coming years we are likely to see more attempts to engineer and amplify ‘controversies’ that will sow confusion and insecurity on campuses. Talks — defended in the name of ‘free speech’ and ‘academic freedom’ — by neo-fascists and transphobes will suit that agenda very well. […] Universities should be inclusive spaces: our safeguarding of the dignity and self-determination of trans, non-binary, intersex and other gender diverse colleagues and students should be central to our mission as university workers and as trade unionists […] and must be a non-negotiable and indivisible part of our wider campaign for academic freedom.”

By ‘safeguarding’ here they mean not allowing women to speak about concerns, rights, campaigns, and movements that are linked with being sexed as female.

The counter-statement correctly asserts that the:

“rights of transgender, non-binary and gender diverse people to self-identify in no way threatens academic freedom”.

This is self-evident. However as the campaign UCU for Academic Freedom responded:

“No one is arguing otherwise, and certainly not UCU for Academic Freedom. Rather, as our list of examples unequivocally demonstrate, what is a threat to academic freedom is the insistence that there can be “no debate” over whether self-identification is the only basis on which individuals can be categorised as men, women or otherwise, accompanied by the accusation that attempts to debate this issue can only be motivated by “transphobia” and must be silenced. This position leaves no space for genuine discussion, nuance, or the possibility of examining the evidence and finding ways forward that will enhance everyone’s rights in a changing world. Such a position closes down genuine engagement, and when it is loudly asserted and even enforced (through intimidation and threats) in universities, academic freedom is among the casualties. We need to have careful, evidence-based discussion of the effects of changing the legislation on women’s sex-based rights and on the interaction between a changed Gender Recognition Act and the existing Equality Act (2010).Insisting that such discussion is illegitimate is a threat to academic freedom. So is the repellent insinuation that only “neo-fascists and transphobes” would wish to discuss these matters.”

When some feminist comrades of UCU representative David Harvie, an author of the Statement on Academic Freedom and Trans Inclusion, tried to debate these points on Facebook all our comments were deleted by him and some of us were unfriended. Several of us were women who had worked as activists and critical academics alongside him for decades, and some were also UCU members. In a separate Facebook discussion with a male Marxist academic comments by myself and a female academic were deleted and I was unfriended after questioning the ‘evil terf’ narrative. I know from conversations with a number of left-leaning women that this sort of cancelling has become increasingly frequent over the last couple of years.

Even after a few years of this I am still so shocked and saddened to see and experience the misogyny. Men who we used to discuss with, who we thought took us seriously, with whom we had discussed everything under the sun, are suddenly advocating ‘no debate’, when debate was once the very foundation of our culture and political methodology.

It’s women being ‘cancelled’.

If you follow this topic you will be aware of so many women in the public eye (pretty much always women) being ‘cancelled’ for this kind of wrongthink. It is women being threatened with violence, including sexual violence, and losing their jobs for asking questions about the new realities proposed by trans activism, or for supporting others who do so.

JK Rowling is beyond the pale for querying gender self-identification, but when male John Cleese questions self-id on twitter, it’s just fine. Trans activist authors quit the agency over JKR, but not over them representing male racist homophobe Tyson Fury. Emma Nicholson was sacked from the Booker, but male Damian Barr, an actual transphobe, provoked no major outcry. Allison Bailey, black female lesbian, is being complained about by Stonewall for setting up an LGB group to support LGB people, but male Simon Fanshawe, not so much.

It is hard not to come to the conclusion that there is a significantly misogynist dimension to trans activism. This is not at all a comment on the majority of trans people who are just trying to live their lives. It is an observation about some trans activists, many of whom are not trans. Indeed many of them are ‘cis’ white males.

My erstwhile comrades now seem to believe that to be free thinkers there are some things that must not be said. Academic circles, made up of those paid to think and debate are following a ‘no debate’ line. There are some statements apparently so powerful that, like a witch’s incantation, will hurt trans people just by thinking them.

What is this thing that is so awful it cannot be said? That you can’t be Facebook friends with someone who thinks it because apparently it falls so far outside of what is a reasonable viewpoint that it will link you with ‘neo-fascism’? That you can’t speak it out loud except to trusted people who you have already ‘come out’ to? That you have to tweet about it under false names for fear of losing your career?

This thing that can’t be voiced is disagreement with the statement that trans women are literally women. This thing that can’t be said is the dictionary definition of women and the difference between sex and gender.

No-one is debating if trans women exist, if they should exist, or if they should have full human rights. The question is, are trans women literally women, and should they qualify for the various exceptions specified in UK Equality Law as for females?

Part 2. Are Trans Women Women?

This is what the debate comes down to. The assertion that TWAW (and trans men are men etc) demands we scrap the current legal and social category of sex and replace it with a category of self-defined innate gender identity in all cases. According to trans activists not thinking TWAW is transphobic in itself, and is exposed as a kind of ‘gotcha’.

But is the statement ‘trans women are women’ true?’ Is it useful for political and social advancement? And, is it kind?

I maintain that these questions very much warrant a debate. In fact, and especially because of the legal dimensions alluded to above, there is a lot to debate. And debating these questions is not akin to neo-fascism.

It is true?

Proposing that we change the definition of ‘woman’ from one of sex to one of gender identity, needs to answer the question of who is included in this new definition. What is the boundary of ‘woman’, if it is not that women are female-bodied? Words are specific and exclude other definitions. The category ‘woman’ excludes the category ‘man’. The only prerequisite for being a trans woman is being male. No female can become a trans woman. So trans woman is a subset of man, not a subset of woman. Humans cannot change sex, they can only become trans gender.

What is sex?
Humans are dimorphic animals who reproduce sexually, the female producing the large gametes and the male the small. This is true whether errors in the DNA reproduction leading to chromosome abnormalities occur or not. The ‘sex is a spectrum’ idea is not helpful (or accurate) for two main reasons. Firstly the patriarchy does not do DNA tests to determine who to rape, pay less, abort, demand domestic labour from but instead uses a lay-person’s reading of sex to shape all these choices. And secondly, trans people are not claiming to have difference of sexual development (DSD) or have chromosome abnormalities. They are claiming to have an innate gender identity (with or without gender dysphoria) that somehow matches an idea of the gender that is assumed to be linked with the sex that is not theirs.

What is Gender?
‘Gender is the name for the totality of the system which maintains female people in a subordinate position as a sex-class.’ This was the basic premise of feminism, and one that I don’t think we have superseded. The basic liberal premise that gender stereotypes are a bad thing and that it is OK for girls to climb trees and boys to play with dolls seems to have been forgotten. Why is this?

The new definition of gender seems to be something like a ‘sexed soul’. Instead of concepts to be criticised, constructs of ‘masculine’ or ‘feminine’ become definitional of who should be men and women. My soul is feminine according to current cultural norms, therefore I am classified as woman, but I have a penis so it must be a female penis. To me this is more regressive and less liberating that the opposite idea: my body is female, and my personality or social presentation is masculine according to current cultural norms, so being for example butch is a normal variation of woman.

Why does it matter?
These definitional issues are important for two main reasons. Firstly viewing the tom-boy, butch woman and lesbians as normal helps all girls and women feel OK being themselves and find themselves recognised in society and culture. Secondly using the word ‘women’ to mean our sex gives us the language, definitions and power to fight our oppression. Females are not oppressed because of their gender; rather, culturally enforced gender expectations are the means by which we are oppressed. Constantly being told you should be nice and pretty and kind and helpful is the means by which our emotional and reproductive labour is exploited.

Is it politically useful?

OK — so TWAW might not be ‘true’ in a biological or philosophical sense, but might it be a politically or socially useful way to categorise people in order to emancipate ourselves and fight for our rights, women’s and trans’? Trans women are oppressed too and why can’t we all just come together to fight the patriarchy?

Fighting oppression
When fighting oppression the category needed is the one that links those oppressed. It is the oppression of women as a sex, through the gendered expectations linked with sex, that feminists are fighting. The basis and form of oppression defines the political category of liberation movements. Black rights groups are for those who experience racism, not those with certain melatonin levels e.g. white people with deep suntans. It is homophobia that necessitates a gay rights movements, not same-sex attraction per se. A materialist analysis of social relations shows us that globally women as a sex are still very much a category to organise for. They suffer FGM, infanticide of female fetuses, forced marriage and unwanted pregnancies, on the basis of their biology, not their gender identity.

Trans people, like all people, should have, and legally do have, full human rights (freedom from discrimination, employment, housing, healthcare, political representation, etc.), and in UK Equality Law are also protected from being discriminated against for undergoing, or having undergone, gender reassignment.

But trans activism also claims that trans women need access to all women’s spaces (i.e. those protected as exceptions in UK Equality Law) as a matter of urgency and principle. Therefore, it is not trans rights that are being debated here, but women’s rights.

Women’s rights
We have sex-separated spaces for clear reasons. They were fought for to allow privacy, protection, and to support fair participation in public life. As the vast majority of violent and sexual crime is committed by men, women’s only spaces were demanded. As men are faster and stronger, women’s sports were separated to make a fair competition. Women only prisons exist partly due to male pattern violence and women’s likelihood of having been victims of that violence. As women were politically under-represented, separate short lists and committees were created. As women are lower paid they can bring sex discrimination cases. These preconditions still exist. But they do not exist for trans women.

The likelihood of a trans woman being a perpetrator of violent and sexual offenses is commensurate with their sex, not their gender. The rates for trans people being murder victims in the UK and the US turns out to be lower than that of the average population and much lower than women. If TWAW the trans women sex offenders crimes should be recorded as being perpetrated by women, significantly affecting data collection and subsequent policy. If self-id is the basis by which pay is recorded within a company, there is no way of seeing if there is a pay gap between males and females, nor in fact trans or non-trans people.

A trans woman has a right to play sport, but as they retain a larger body, larger lungs and higher muscle ratio after transition, their self-id does not mean they should play against women, as it does not change the precondition for separating sport in the first place.

A trans woman has a right to a job, but I do not think she has the right to one earmarked for women-only, such as in a rape crisis centre. Boys have a right to activities such as camping, but they do not have a right to join the girl guides when the scouts are mixed sex, and the reasons for having girls only outdoor groups still exist.

If trans women really are women then this has to work in all circumstances. These examples instead show places where TWAW comes up against women’s rights. I do not therefore think there is a material or political basis for the proposal to scrap the category of sex, and replace it with self-id gender.

Healthcare
Another example where it is not practically useful to distinguish by gender rather than sex is healthcare where the person’s sex is clearly important. Eg. replacing ‘women’ with ‘people with a cervix’ in a cancer prevention public health campaign seems to me a good way of losing those who are already missed in cervical screening programmes, such as speakers of other languages. Covid has shown us how important sex is to understand all aspects of a person’s health.

Is self id like transubstantiation?
I do not think the act of self-declaration literally and in all cases changes a person’s category from boy to girl or man to woman. I wonder if my comrades really do believe that the act of self id makes men into women like some kind of transubstantiation? Is Pippa Bunce quite literally a woman some of the time? Is Alex Drummond literally a woman? Are these two Democrat candidates in New York, keeping the one man, one woman rule fought for by the suffragettes? Is Veronica Ivy (prev Rachel Mckinnon) literally a woman and should compete against women despite having a male body?

Trans rights
Trans liberation movements can fight for trans people, without the claim that they are women. Tackle the problems of violence, political representation, access to sporting events, education, and employment rights by campaigning, fund-raising, lobbying and organising for those issues, and we will all support you. The idea of third spaces opens up huge possibilities for defending trans rights in a range of arenas.

Women did not win the vote or the right to equal pay by claiming to be men. Gay rights did not win by claiming to be straight. Black people are not claiming to be white in order to argue for the same opportunities. Trans rights can be won on their own terrain and merits without claiming to be the opposite sex. Gender reassignment is a protected characteristic under the Equalities Act, just as sex is, so campaigns can be fought either within the movement or using the law, without the demand that trans women are literally women.

Is it kind?

Even if it is not true, and is not useful in ensuring full rights for all, maybe TWAW is kind? As in ‘trans people are suffering and can’t you be nice to them and use the correct language?’ This is based on the premise that affirming the chosen gender in all situations is the kind thing to do and would benefit trans people. However, there is no consensus amongst transsexuals, transgender or detransitioned people that denial of their natal sex is psychologically helpful.

Human beings cannot change sex. Society is overwhelmingly and repressively gendered. Some people suffer acute gender dysphoria and this makes their lives in our hyper-gendered world unbearable. Some find their dysphoria relieved somewhat by transitioning. That is all true. But repeating the delusions that either; humans can change sex, or your gendered soul is the defining characteristic of what makes you male or female, is unhelpful for women, for those who suffer acute gender dysphoria, and all those who do not fit into gender stereotypes.

Gender dysphoria
Many older transsexuals who have lived through transition are acutely aware of the compromises their life entails, and recommend extreme caution in taking that path. The decision to become a life-long medical patient, to accept compromised fertility and sexual function, to risk skeletal problems and cancer must not be taken lightly. Sex is hard-wired into the body. It should go without saying that if the person can be helped to live a healthy life without medication or surgery then that is surely a better outcome. Although for some transition will be the right path, it must be a last resort with the understanding that the only possible outcome post-transition is one of passing as the opposite gender without too much compromise to health. Telling young people they can change sex, and shutting down voices that dispute that, is profoundly unhelpful for those young people making huge life choices. Supporting young people with gender and body dysphoria is vital and underfunded work, not helped by shouting trans boys are boys and trans girls are girls very loudly.

There are accounts of profound disappointment after the initial high of transition when the person realises it is a journey to a destination they will never reach. This may be the reason that depression and suicidal ideation has not been shown to decrease after transition (contrary to Mermaids propaganda). It is also well documented that young people seeking transition have a higher likelihood of being autistic, having mental health problems, or a history of abuse or trauma. It is irresponsible and unkind to sell them a myth rather than reach compassionate solutions based on honesty. A letter published in the BMJ concludes that “Confirming disgust in natal sex or external sexual organs, especially for those with prior childhood trauma, risks medical collusion with, or reenacting of, abuse.” Telling a child suffering from body dysphoria that they are indeed born in the wrong body is not kind.

The trans umbrella
Setting aside those who suffer from acute gender dysphoria, there are a great many people who, like all of us to a certain extent, have realised that the gender stereotypes are bullshit, ill-fitting and constraining. Until recent years the radical solution was to try to break down gender stereotypes for everyone. Now some of these individuals have embraced the trans identity, seeing themselves as a special subgroup who uniquely don’t fit, and give themselves an ever increasing alphabet soup of identities under the trans umbrella, for example non-binary.

I have no doubt as to the real pain of being an effeminate man, or a woman who cannot perform the required femininity. However, it seems to me that the more progressive tasks are to challenge toxic masculinity and hyper femininity; to make men’s spaces safer for gender non-conforming men; to challenge male gender stereotypes so boys and men can feel more comfortable being ‘feminine’; to end the objectification of girls and women as sexual beings (enabled by the vast porn industry); and to end the normalisation of sexual assault and harassment.

Many transsexuals, people with differences of sexual development (DSD), detransitioners, and those who identify as trans gender are themselves silenced and bullied for questioning the new orthodoxy and are being dragged into a fight they do not want. There is also a growing lesbian and gay movement who are once again having to assert the right to be same sex attracted. The fact that Stonewall has expressed no concern over the Newsnight report suggesting GIDS might be medicating gay children due to homophobia shows their lack of concern for gay rights. It is not ‘LGBT people’ the trans lobby is supporting, but a very specific dogma.

Conclusion

Peddling the myth that trans women are women, and that humans can change sex is not true, not useful and not kind. Trans rights can be fought for and won on their own merits, just as certain aspects of women’s rights have been in the past.

What can I conclude? That, as Germaine Greer has said, ‘women have little idea how much men hate them’? That the critical faculties of my comrades weren’t as great as I once thought? That the care and respect I accorded my friends was not reciprocated enough to prevent being labelled ‘neo-fascist’ over engaging respectfully with a reasoned difference of perspective?

It is not so much that they disagree with me that I can’t understand — that has happened plenty of times before — but that they can’t debate with me. I can understand Twitter and Google being on the side of the patriarchy, but I can’t forgive my comrades. Are woke points really that valuable a commodity that you would throw away your female comrades for them? Or have you really changed your mind on the basic principles of a feminist analysis of gender as a tool of patriarchy?

If you have coherent materialist reasons for the proposal to change the categories of men and women from one of sex to one of gender, then please, let’s hear them.