Barely a peep from her more traditional colleagues on the Tory back benches
Tom McTague at the Independent joins the popular chorus of contempt for feminists.
When the Women and Equalities Committee published a report calling for a sea-change in attitudes to transgender people, Maria Miller, the chair of the committee, might have expected to be attacked by right-wingers within her own party.
But, while they were largely silent on the issue, the former Culture secretary said she was taken aback by the “extraordinary” hostility from a minority of women “purporting to be feminists”.
Speaking to The Independent on Sunday from her office in Westminster, Ms Miller insisted that the “overwhelming” reaction to her report has been positive. Despite controversial calls for “gender neutral” passports and for 16-year-olds to be given the legal right to change their sex, there was barely a peep from her more traditional colleagues on the Tory back benches.
Why might that be, do you suppose? Could it be because conservatives are perfectly happy with an ideology that relies on essentialist ideas of “gender identity”? Could it be because conservatives are perfectly happy to see men who are “too girly” solve the problem by identifying as women?
A glance at Ms Miller’s Twitter page shows that the backlash is real. She is accused of exposing women to “violent men hiding behind the mask of transgender”. In another message, she is told trans women are “not real women” and are often “violent offenders or sex offenders” and that she was failing in her duty to protect women.
It follows on from Germaine Greer’s remark that transgender women “can’t be women”, adding: “Just because you lop off your penis … it doesn’t make you a woman.”
No, it doesn’t. Couldn’t the Independent have found someone who knows something about the subject to report on it? It’s got nothing to do with Germaine Greer.
But Ms Miller, wading into the dangerous territory of radical feminist politics, insisted that they are wrong. She pointed to research by the Fawcett Society, a think-tank campaigning for women’s rights, which found that two-thirds of feminists believe gender to be fluid. “Of course, that would cut across what Germaine Greer is saying,” she said.
Sigh. No it wouldn’t. Saying gender is fluid is not the same thing as saying some people assigned male are “really” women and some assigned female are “really” men. It’s pretty much the opposite of that; if not the opposite it’s at least in strong tension with it. If gender is fluid, then males can just be as “feminine” as they like, and females can be as “masculine” as they like. The need to transition melts away.
But that would ruin the fun of attacking feminists, so forget it.
And indeed, the idea of gender fluidity brings it back to the old meaning where gender was the social assignments of traits to the categories masculine and feminine (competitiveness is masculine; cooperativeness is feminine, for example) and then says all people have a combination of traits and often a mix of opposing ones (a person can have a competitive streak in play but work well in groups) and it doesn’t actually matter what traits you are stronger in. Balance is actually a rather good thing.
Yes, it seems to me that saying gender is something “inherent” or “essential” to a person’s identity is not saying it’s fluid, it’s saying it is rigidly constructed, but that some people are on the wrong side of the line in the way society views them.
Re-defining words so that they mean the opposite of what they are understood to mean does not mean that your position is right. It means it is distorted and requires some sort of pretzeling of language to support it.
Although some people would want to change sex, probably, even if there were no gender expectations, because bodies do matter.
I wonder what percentage of the responses were supportive vs “backlash.” What does she mean by extraordinary hostility. The examples she talks about show more fear and ignorance than hostility