Emily Brothers, former Labour parliamentary candidate for Sutton and Cheam, writes that Labour needs ‘trans respect not transphobia’. It is a shame that she makes this call using language that is, at best, dismissive of the feminist movement and at worst taps into profound misogyny. The move towards greater public acceptance and institutional recognition for trans people has been one of the fastest-moving developments in equalities, but it is not a development without conflicts.
The Women and Equalities Committee inquiry into trans equality, which Brothers applauds, includes two key recommendations that, taken together, pose serious a problem for the women’s sector. The first is that legal gender should be based on self-declaration: rather than the ‘medicalised, quasi-judicial application process’ currently involved, the WEC suggests ‘an administrative process […] centred on the wishes of the individual applicant’. If adopted, that would mean that an individual could be recognised in a new gender for all legal purposes without taking any hormonal, surgical or even aesthetic steps towards presenting as a woman or presenting as a man.
The second is the call for single-sex services to treat anyone with a gender recognition certificate in accordance with their acquired sex. Currently, the Equality Act allows the discretion to discriminate where there is a ‘genuine occupational requirement’: this means that organisations working with female prisoners, for example, can decide not to include transwomen in their services if they believe their clients (vulnerable women traumatised by male violence) would be detrimentally affected by the presence of someone they perceive to be male. (It is also worth noting that in some cases transwomen’s needs might be better served by targeted specialised services – but it is recognised that these are in even shorter supply.)
Removing that discretion would compel such organisations to include all those who identify as women, regardless of organisations’ judgement about the effects on other clients or the specific needs of trans individuals, and regardless of whether transition has involved a total shift of social role, or simply the declaration of identity. Effectively, this would privilege identity over physical sex for legal purposes. And while it would avoid the unpleasant current situation where trans people who ‘pass’ in their acquired gender are treated more favourably than trans people who don’t, it is worth remembering that gender is very much a matter of being treated according to the sex you are seen as: to pass as a woman, whether one is a natal female or a transwoman, is to be subject to sexism, harassment and workplace discrimination.
That’s a challenge that needs to be addressed, not dismissed. But by referring to any critics as ‘TERFs’ and falsely accusing them of causing violence, Brothers has poisoned the well of discussion. In her piece, she writes:
‘trans-exclusionary radical feminists (known as TERF’s [sic] and led by the likes of Germaine Greer), along with intolerant newspaper columnists, peddle myths and whip up prejudice. The dismissive rhetoric stirs up crimes of hatred, creating fear among trans people that they will not be accepted and may be confronted with “deserved violence”.’
TERF is indeed an acronym for ‘trans exclusionary radical feminists’, but in language usage is always more important than origin, and in practice, TERF is a term of abuse targeted at women. Extensive documentation finds it in phrases like ‘kill all TERFs’ and ‘die TERF scum’; TERFs are called ‘disgusting’, compared to rubbish, and said to ‘stink’. This is not a word that is in any sense compatible with the values of Labour: as linguist Deborah Cameron explains, it is a slur, and it is deeply regrettable that Brothers or anyone else in the movement should use it.
Despite Brothers’ claim that TERFs are ‘led’ by Greer, there is no group that refers to itself as TERFs, and no evidence at all that the words of radical feminists cause violence against trans people. In fact, the idea that perpetrators of hate crimes are in any way influenced by their reading of The Whole Woman is almost baroque in its absurdity. In fact, it is the women who are called TERFs who get attacked: Greer
was ‘glitterbombed’ in 2012 as a protest against her alleged transphobia. She has not, to my knowledge, committed any assaults of her own against trans people.
The violence that trans people are subjected to is male violence, just like the violence that women are subjected to. It needs to be named for what it is if we are ever to confront it. Scapegoating feminists, as Brothers does, not only lets the actual culprits off the hook, it also jeopardises many of the gains for women’s rights that Labour should be proud of.
Tackling the wage gap, expanding maternity leave and childcare, establishing specialist domestic violence courts, increasing the conviction rate for rape – all these things are founded in an understanding of the ways women suffer discrimination because we are female, and not because of the way we identify. Defending this vital framework as we develop rights for trans people requires careful consideration and attention to the claims of all parties. When Brothers dismisses any woman with a critical viewpoint as a ‘TERF’, she also dismisses the possibility of having the good-faith debate we so badly need.
———————————
Sarah Ditum is a journalist who writes regularly for the Guardian, New Statesman and others. She tweets at @sarahditum
You can read Emily Brothers‘ piece here
———————————
Photo: Flickr
The problem is that queer theory and postmodernism says the biological category of sex male (boy/man) and female (girl/boy) are not stable; that a person can “identify” themselves into either category if they want. This would be fine if both sexes had achieved equality, but unfortunately they haven’t. For example the pay gap still exists, males are still promoted over females, females are still the majority of victims sexual violence. Males are the sex who commit the vast majority of sexual violence against women. So laws based on “gender identify” in practice only harms females and benefits males.
In reality this means a male can suddenly fill quotas set for women. He can also change the stats on the pay gap and male violence against women. He can also enter women’s spaces. Where are women’s rights to refuse any male access to us? Feminists have always maintained that males demand access to females, that they try to limit women’s right to exclude males. Males demanding entrance to women’s spaces is male entitlement, calling himself a woman does not change this, to claim it does is gas lighting females.
If males who wanted to perform “femininity” were still legally recognised as males (boys/men) and had their own spaces then they would be no problem. However, it seems for some their motives are not about a concern for privacy and dignity. Indeed plenty of literature (including the DSM) says males who declare they are “women” late in life often have a fetish called autogynephiles, (they become sexually excited at the thought of themselves as women). They want validation from those around them that they are really women. Since when is it progressive to force women to indulge male fetishes?
These men also call themselves “lesbians”. I am a lesbian women and am sick of entitled heterosexual males thinking they can claim to be one of us, and enter lesbian only groups etc. Where is my right as a lesbian to refuse access to heterosexual males?
Adolescents who are attracted to their own sex, are being led to believe they are really the opposite sex under this ideology. Homophobia and lesbophobia, both external and internalised are brushed off as causes for this belief. Girls who do not like the overtly sexualised role females are expected to fulfil, are also concluding they are must really be male under this ideology. Young children are now also being taught if they like toys, clothes etc, associated with the opposite sex, they are stuck in the wrong body. How this any of this progressive?
ProgressOnline fails to mention that Sarah Ditum is a noted anti-transgender activist.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2016/10/12/nspcc-invites-anti-trans-campaigner-to-debate-transgender-children/
Ditum has previously described reporting on the high rates of suicide among young trans people as “bullshit”, suggesting that trans suicides are caused by “telling people they can become meaningful by killing themselves” rather than bullying and discrimination.
On another occasion she wrote: “Some women would like to have spaces without dick, same as a gunshot victim should have rifle-free spaces.”
After Caitlyn Jenner came out as trans, she mockingly tweeted: “Jenner says the hardest part of being a woman is getting dressed, when the thing I’ve always struggled with is where to tuck my penis.”
So if someone was allegedly assaulted and the Alleged victim, saw in the officer dealing with them ,racial similarities, or the same religious identification, Hindu red Spot, turban, Christian Crucifix, then the Alleged victim said they don’t want A PC to deal with them because the persons colour, religious ID reminds them of their alleged attacks ,would the Authorities say ,the person aking the allegation didn’t gave yo gave that PC tell them, what if it was a same sex, alleged attack,or the Alleged victim, felt it was due to gay/Lesbian issues or they only wanted a trans person to deal with them as it was a alleged trans attack
1. Introduce ‘gender identity’ as an additional protected characteristic for employment rights.
2. Retain sex as the protected characteristic used to define access to refuges, prisons, toilets (but add additional unisex facility), sports, and for monitoring things in which womens ability to get pregnant is a key factor like pay gaps/top level representation.
3. Make misogyny a hate crime.
4. Ensure appropriate mental health care is given to all trans people, and ensure this is holistically managed alongside any other MH issues.
5. Work harder to break gender stereotypes, stop the pink/blue brain bias that has been created by marketers, and stop putting children in boxes of what they can or can’t achieve as a result of their sex.
The author misrepresents Emily’s article; she does not scapegoat feminists but calls out the very real and vicious hostility expressed by a vocal minority who contend their “feminism” is incompatible with solidarity and respect between cis and transwomen.
TERF is an accurate descriptor for those who, like the author of this piece, seek to exclude transwomen from services rather than develop effective support for victims of violence, whether cis, trans or in other ways gender non-conforming.
In doing so, TERFS perpetuate, not challenge, patriarchal gender norms that harm us all.
You know what TERF means, you know who it refers to, people like Cathy Brennan, who regularly “outs” trans people to their employers and trans kids to their parents and schools among other things. Also people like Gallus Mag who hides behind an anonymous username to attack any and all transpeople with her blog. Germaine Greet may not be the “TERF Leader”, but people listen to her, what she says has an effect on society and she doesn’t mince her words (that I applaud anyone for), but some of the things she’s said about transpeople are utterly disgusting! If someone says similar things regarding the colour of people’s skin then they’d rightly be called out on it.
I see Sarah Ditum is quoting the guardians article about the Anul Rape scene from a movie in the 1970’s, glorifying rape, what next saying Schindlers list, glorified the holocaust
at the blue labour meeting 18 months ago,Rod Liddle .he was apologetic about his silly joke at Emily bruthers sake, he was there with Sunder Katwala, Katwala, had joined previously with Femi Nazi Sarah Ditum ,to slag off liddle for a suggested appointment as editor of the Independent, this was before the independent backed the Tories at the 2015 general election,as the Indy at the time,wouldn’t benefit from liddle being too right wing
“and in practice, TERF is a term of abuse targeted at women”
In practice, TERF identifies cisgendered women who say they are feminists but who want their feminism to be the exclusive preserve of cisgendered women.
As a cisgendered woman (and a feminist) I’ve had issues with TERF, not least because I identify as a radical feminist and I object to having radical feminism and transphobia interlinked.
But practically speaking: we do need a word for the people who are “cisgendered women who say they are feminists but who want their feminism to be the exclusive preserve of cisgendered women” – and TERF seems to be becoming that word.
I am happy to call the cisgendered women who say they are feminists but who want their feminism to be the exclusive preserve of cisgendered women, by some other word if they can come up with one, since I generally believe that people should get to name themselves, but as yet, I haven’t seen any of the cisgendered women who say they are feminists but who want their feminism to be the exclusive preserve of cisgendered women, come up with a term to identify themselves. I suspect the boat may have sailed on this one.