The Feminist Schism
Are we in a feminist revival or the decimation of the movement?
We are in the midst of a great feminist revival. Everywhere, women are speaking up for themselves and their rights. Major achievements are unlocked, with women running for office and winning in record numbers. But as we power forward into the female future, the movement faces questions that must be answered — or create a schism that risks tearing feminism apart.
The disagreement among otherwise like-minded individuals is, on its surface, over the significance of biological sex in relationship to gender. But the real, underlying issue is self-determination and female acquiescence. We hear a great deal about female rage these days. But there is one kind of feminist anger that has received relatively little mainstream attention: the feminists who oppose transgender ideology.
Trans ideology has been officially adopted by the Women’s March, whose Unity Principles include this tenet:
We firmly declare that LGBTQIA Rights are Human Rights and that it is our obligation to uplift, expand and protect the rights of our gay, lesbian, bi, queer, trans, or gender non-conforming brothers, sisters, and siblings. We must have the power to control our bodies and be free from gender norms, expectations and stereotypes.
In practice, what this means is women must acquiesce to opening up both the word “woman” and its definition to be inclusive of trans women. In many areas of the feminist movement, from academia and the arts to the brunch conversations of the left-wing coastal crowd, it’s already been decided that trans women and their non-trans counterparts are more sisters than siblings, complete with all the rights and privileges thereof.
The debate in the public and social media space has moved on from the issue itself to the question of whether there should be a debate at all. And the surprising answer has been: maybe not. So what to do with the individuals who disagree? Should they be able to speak on platforms such as Twitter and Facebook about this or other issues within contemporary feminist discourse, or should the women be quieted?
On feminist Twitter, women are reemerging after short absences, letting us know they’d been temporarily banned or suspended. Most notably, radical feminist journalist and founder of the Feminist Current website, Meghan Murphy, was permanently banned for her refusal to redefine the term “woman” to be inclusive of individuals who were born male, and has moved on to other platforms.
What does it mean to close debate on whether the words “man” and “woman” ought to be expanded in this sort of way? The rationale for shutting this down is that the conversation itself is too painful for people faced with the daily ordeal of being trans in a patriarchal, heteronormative world. But the pain of individuals designated by the prefix “cis”—or at least the undesirability of that label—must also be considered.
For many of these individuals, the news that they are “cis” comes as something of a shock. “Cis,” as opposed to “trans,” means that an individual’s felt identity corresponds to her natal body. But many “cis” women reject this designation. These protestors, acronymed TERF, for trans-exclusionary radical feminists, balk at a term that they believe links them to male-defined traditional femininity.
For women who have made a lifelong practice of bucking female stereotypes yet still believe that they are women — not trans or gender non-conforming — it can be jarring to be labeled in a way that suggests adherence to the very stereotypes they have been trying to wrest free from.
Should these women be re-identified as gender non-conforming despite their insistence that their gender ought not be defined by traits culled from the annals of patriarchal anti-female bias? Must we interrupt their perception of reality to tell them they’re wrong about who they are? Do they have “cis privilege” if they reject the notion that they are cis?
Before we apply the term “cis” to individuals who do not adhere to what the terms dictate, we must ask whether it is reasonable to apply an identifier to someone who rejects it. The only way it could be reasonable would be through the application of privilege theory: Those with less privilege in the hierarchy of oppression have the moral right to label their more privileged oppressors, i.e., those reclassified as cisgender. In other words: It’s okay to label women “cis,” whether or not they want to be, because being cis makes them privileged. That’s circular logic, and it’s just as nonsensical as it sounds.
Given that identity categories are significant components of who we are in Western culture — discovering, defining, and asserting one’s identity, and finding solidarity and kinship with those who share it — it seems unbecoming to assign an identity to an individual against their will.
It seems likely that in the near future, more people will be blocked and banned on social media for not accepting that all debate on the issue of trans ideology is closed. The argument in favor of privileged “cis” women opening up the definition of “woman” to be inclusive of trans women will appear to have been settled.
However, all it will really mean is that the dissenters — women who are in favor of defining gender along biological lines, who do not believe that women need any modifiers to the term “woman” regardless of whether or not they fit traditional feminine stereotypes, who believe that an open and frank debate is needed on this issue — will be exiled from a conversation in which their identities will be determined without their input or consent.
