This contested term
Guardian rant by trans man Finn Mackay:
In December, five years later than promised, the Tories finally delivered draft, non-statutory guidance for schools on “gender questioning children”…
The document doesn’t tell us anything we don’t already know about this government’s hostile stance on trans identities, inclusion and rights; but, unfortunately, what it does do is further solidify in official documentation and language the politicised phrase “gender identity ideology”.
Well speaking of “politicised” what exactly do you mean by “trans rights”? What are they and how do you know?
It is in fact quite obvious what the government means by “gender identity ideology.” It means the ideology that claims men can be women and women can be men. It means the ideology that claims people invariably are what they say they are in the case of sex/gender. It means the ideology that claims people can literally be the opposite sex of their own bodies. It means the ideology that claims ideas in the head can cancel physical realities. It means the ideology that claims the brain is the only sex organ. It means the ideology that claims that vaginas and penises, ovaries and testes, are just trimming, and wholly beside the point when it comes to knowing who is which sex/gender.
The government is attempting to bring into the mainstream this contested term, a creation of rightwing sex and gender conservatism that dates back to the 1990s, and which forms a key part of renewed attacks against the LGBTQ+ community.
Liar. Saying men are not women is in no way an attack on lesbians and gay men.
As used in this context, the phrase “gender identity ideology” is actually nothing to do with gender, as in masculinity and femininity, and how this shapes our identities.
Pffff. As if Mackay would agree he’s merely “masculine” as opposed to being literally in every sense a man.
The real gender ideology is the binary sex and gender system that requires all of us to be either male-masculine-heterosexual or female-feminine-heterosexual; and which attaches harsh penalties to those who deviate from this script.
More bullshit. Knowing which people are men does not require all of us to be either male-masculine-heterosexual or female-feminine-heterosexual. Yes, sure, there are some people who dislike girly men and boyish women, but that fact is not the same as knowing which people are which sex.
One thing this ideology does do is ruin people’s thinking skills.
This understanding of the reality of sex was NOT a creation of 1990s conservatives. To me that may be the most pathetic gabble claim.
So, as we’re saying, the real gender ideology is the people who believe that ‘trans’ is a thing, then? Because, to them, a boy who is feminine and/or gay must be brutally mutilated and poisoned to become something that purports to be female, but isn’t; and a girl who is masculine and/or a lesbian must also go through equivalent mistreatment. I can’t think of a higher penalty than mutilation, sterilisation, lifelong unnecessary pain and disability, and an early death.
Feminists are saying that sex is real and gender should be dumped. That people should be free to adopt whichever behaviours with which they feel comfortable, without being forced into either gender box. How is that harmful?
…says a proponent of the movement that has succeeded in getting government, industry, and media to call men “women,” and have them treated as such in official policy, and addressed as “she” and “her”, at great cost to women. You just can’t stand anyone telling you “No,” and calling bullshit on your dangerous word-games. Just fuck off. It’s gonna take years to weed that garden.
This, of course, is actually a fair description of socio-religious conservatives’ view of the issues, here. They would happily shackle women back into the confines of ‘femininity’, as they define it. Lumping feminists who are critical of gender in with such reprobates is basically the mirror form of forced teaming–it’s an attempt to insist that there are only two sides to the issue, and thus that anyone who is not one side must perforce be on the other.
Trading one gender presentation for another does nothing to reject the stereotypes, it only seeks to trade one for another, thereby reinforcing the very stereotypes the gender ideologues wish to reject. The only way biological sex can be referred to as a “system” is how it concerns reproduction (biologically) — it’s not a social system. Futhermore, if gender is going to be regarded as a “system” then it’s due to it’s existence as a belief system — in other words an ideology, and it’s still binary. It’s not that complicated. It’s the people who want to write some fantastic personal “script” (and require us to play along) who confuse things.