Why Gender Ideology Does Not Exist
At least, the right-wing version of it does not exist
In recent years, right-wing culture warriors have popularized the term ‘gender ideology’, and it has become so mainstream that many otherwise respectable right-of-center pundits have begun regularly using it. However, in all this usage, it is never defined what exactly ‘gender ideology’ entails. An ideology is, by definition, based around a cohesive worldview. To blatantly accuse people of having an ideology without first being able to establish this sets a dangerous precedent, where simple thoughts and ideas can be rendered taboo in some circles by branding them ‘ideological’.
From what I see, for the most hardline right-wing culture warriors, any acknowledgement of trans identities in any way would constitute ‘gender ideology’ for them. Therefore, even a moderate trans person (like myself), who is willing to have difficult conversations about areas where competing rights might arise, and who is willing to acknowledge that biological sex is still very relevant in some areas of life, would nonetheless be accused of practicing ‘gender ideology’ by these people, simply by identifying as a woman and a trans person. For these people, then, the ‘defeat’ of ‘gender ideology’ would likely mean the complete eradication of any acknowledgment of trans identities in public life, even if this acknowledgment does not come at the expense of ignoring biological sex altogether. For these people, the acknowledgement of trans identity itself is the original sin, and any acknowledgement of, and accommodation for, trans people must be denied, regardless of actual effects, or lack thereof, on other stakeholders. And this view has real-world consequences too: much of the Trump administration’s policies regarding trans people appear to be rooted in this view.
As a trans person, my gender identity is certainly not an ideology. Indeed, I’ve consistently had this gender identity since before age 3. Are you seriously saying that a kid could have an ‘ideology’? Looking at the bigger picture, there is also no evidence that trans people’s gender identities are inherently part of a wider ideology. Trans people can be found all over the political spectrum, and we do get into heated arguments about our political disagreements from time to time. This alone means that trans people don’t share one coherent ideology among all of us. This, in turn, means that trans identity simply can’t be the product of any one political ideology.
On the other hand, some people who talk about ‘gender ideology’ have no problem with trans acceptance and accommodation, at least when it reasonably takes into account the concerns of other stakeholders. What they primarily object to is an attempt to completely deconstruct and remake long-standing cultural views on sex and gender. This could include the insistence that gender is a social construct, the inclusion of this idea in school curricula, the top-down replacement of common terms like ‘mother’ or ‘women’ with ‘gender-neutral’ terms like ‘birthing person’ or ‘person with a cervix’ in non-LGBT contexts, the demand to ‘not assume other people’s genders’, and the associated demand that all people state their preferred pronouns in contexts where it wouldn’t otherwise naturally occur. My view is that these things have little to do with trans acceptance or accommodation, and are more associated with particular forms of postmodernism-influenced feminist ideology, inspired by thinkers like Michel Foucault and Judith Butler. My regular readers would know that I am personally strongly opposed to this ideology. I guess it could be correct to describe this ideology as ‘gender ideology’, because it is indeed an ideology (a comprehensive worldview) that relates to gender. However, I wish we could have a different term to describe it, because as previously discussed, right-wing culture warriors have weaponized the term ‘gender ideology’ in a completely anti-trans way, and in a way that doesn’t really focus on postmodern feminist ideas either.
The conflation of legitimate opposition to postmodern feminism on one hand, with hardline rejection of trans identities on the other hand, into a single category of opposition to ‘gender ideology’, is harmful for several reasons. Firstly, if we want an honest and intellectually vigorous debate, we cannot accept the conflation of very different ideas and concepts linguistically, because this would impede effective communication. Secondly, this conflation essentially misuses legitimate criticism (of postmodern feminism) to force-justify questionable policy preferences (the rejection of all trans identities), which is logically unsound and also unfair. It is also harmful in the practical sense in that the blanket rejection of trans identity in all contexts is not required to resolve issues of competing rights, but would definitely lead to unnecessarily inhumane outcomes for trans people. To uphold this harmful policy orientation, when the less harmful and more practical solution of rationally resolving competing rights in a case-by-case manner when they arise, is by definition ideological, because the decision to pick an inferior solution when a better one is available is inherently irrational, and can only be explained by ideological obsession. Thus, the right-wing culture warriors who speak of ‘gender ideology’ all the time while attacking the very existence of trans people are actually wedded to a form of anti-trans ideology. Their talk of ‘gender ideology’ is basically the pot calling the kettle black.
As a moderate trans person, I am all for honestly discussing cases of competing rights, and I really wish we could resolve these sooner rather than later. I also acknowledge that the trans community will need to agree to make certain compromises so that these issues can be resolved. However, there are clearly bad faith actors who are wedded to anti-trans ideology in the first place, and aim to use manipulative language and philosophical sophistry to construct a case to reject all acknowledgement and accommodation of trans people, with the end result of essentially eradicating us from public life. Those who are skeptical of the trans activist agenda should nevertheless be wary of swallowing the propaganda of these bad faith actors, because their ideological stance would make a productive discourse around competing rights unworkable.
Originally published at https://taraella.substack.com.
TaraElla is a singer-songwriter and author, who is the author of the Progressive Conservative Manifesto, the Moral Libertarian Manifesto and the Moral Libertarian book series. She is also the author of her autobiography The TaraElla Story.
