The fake radicalism of “nonbinary”


“A world segregated into male and female categories feels suffocating,” says the nonbinary Robin Dembroff, assistant professor in philosophy at Yale. “Nonbinary identity is a radical escape hatch”, an alternative to the world of “normed conformity” where “everyone forces each other into a blue or a pink box”. This is set out in Dembroff’s recent article Why be nonbinary? which has received well over 5000 Facebook likes. It is one of a flood of pieces pouring out support for gender ideology, heading people away from a real challenge to confining sex roles and women’s oppression.


Gender and traditional sexism

First Dembroff dispenses with traditionalist sexism:

Most people assume that gender is tied to biological sex. For the majority, this means that gender is identical to sex, where sex is taken to be determined by one’s reproductive features. Call this the ‘identity’ view of gender.


For all the huffing about how gender is just body parts, no one in practice holds the identity view of gender. If gender is just reproductive features and nothing more, it makes no more sense to insist that people must look, love or act in particular ways on the basis of gender than it would to demand that people modify their behaviour on the basis of eye colour or height.

No one “in practice” seems to mean that this theory has no cred scientifically or academically; Dembroff wants to flick it away. But it cannot be dismissed that easily. Vast numbers of people watch boys getting each other in headlocks, hear that boys will be boys, and see nature at work. People don’t make the same sort of assumptions about eye colour and height because no mighty vested interests have worked century after century to police the behaviour of short or green-eyed people, and establish visible patterns of behaviour reinforcing the policed messages. We are struggling against powerful material forces, not just wrong ideas.


Gender and socialized sex roles

“For others, following Simone de Beauvoir, gender is the social meaning of sex,” ” Dembroff says. “Call this the ‘social position’ view of gender.”

A distinction between sex and gender, in which genders are the social positions forced upon certain sexed bodies, has long circulated among feminist theorists and activists. And, no doubt, this way of thinking about gender has helped to debunk ideas about how female persons ‘naturally’ should be and reveal widespread social discriminations against these persons…

It is powerful to insist that women and men should be able to look, act and simply be any way they want. Countless people identify as men or women while simultaneously bucking gender norms. For many of them, being understood as a man or a woman is important for describing how they were socialised as children, how others interpret their bodies, or how they feel about their own bodies. This is wonderful: the more sledgehammers we take to gender categories, the better. Some prefer to make these categories gooey on the inside; I prefer to torch them.

In other words, social positionists deserve a nod, but going nonbinary is more radical, exciting and effective. Most importantly: “While other feminisms question the unequal value placed on femininity and masculinity, highlighting the resulting gender inequalities, the nonbinary movement questions why we insist on these categories at all.”

This is the article’s key distortion. Liberal feminists may limit their attack to the “unequal value placed on femininity and masculinity”, but this is not true of radical feminists, socialist feminists and gender-critical Marxists, all of whom want a liberated world in which feminine and masculine sex roles are abolished altogether and people are free to be themselves (Even most pro-gender Marxists would say they support this.) But the distortion is essential to Dembroff’s argument, to establish nonbinary’s special status.

The real problem is, however, is that nonbinary works against the removal of sex stereotypes. This happens in several ways.


Not like other girls?

When women’s liberationists defy stereotypic expectations, they are consciously sending a message to women as a whole: you can all do this, and you should. Nonbinary, on the other hand, presents discontent with sex stereotypes as a minority concern. Debroff applauds nonbinary/agender teenager Kelsey Beckham who declared in The Washington Post that “I don’t want to be a girl wearing boy’s clothes, nor do I want to be a girl who presents as a boy… I’m just a person wearing people clothes”. Debroff says “Beckham’s claim gets at the heart of nonbinary identity.” But in The Washington Post piece Beckham’s defiance of sex stereotypes makes her other: one of a select few: “Being agender, Kelsey explains… is like living on an island apart from the rest of the world.”

Worse than this, nonbinary implies that the mass of working class women and girls are a good fit with their sex roles. As radical feminist M K Fain points out in her own critique of Dembroff’s article, this is a faux-radical version of “I’m not like other girls” – an attitude now widely derided online, as another writer explains:

Modern feminism acknowledges that the ‘I’m not like other girls’ movement carries hints of internalized misogyny, when girls proudly claim that they ‘are not like other girls’, it suggests that this ‘other’ breed of girls is generally shallow and vapid with no other interests besides fashion, fitness, or beauty.

Its “nonbinary” version offers no message to the mass of women and girls in working class suburbia except to do your hair and support the brave interesting minority who are not like them.


Nonbinary and the pink and blue flag

Nonbinary identity, Dembroff says, is “open to anyone”. Anyone and everyone? “I and other nonbinary persons question why we categorise people as women and men at all.” Could we all, then, get through this radical escape hatch? In a purely logical sense you can move from being nonbinary yourself to rejecting sex stereotypes for all, merging with the politics of women’s liberation. In practice, the nonbinary dwell beneath the “trans umbrella”, where a sex-role-defiant woman – be she nonbinary, masculine, gender fluid or agender – remains not only part of a small minority, but a subordinate part, living under the shelter vouchsafed by the trans movement. In return the nonbinary trend helps draw the most sex-role-defiant young women under the umbrella, women who might not be wowed by Miss Transgender UK or the Le Femme Finishing School.

Life under the trans umbrella is saturated in the sexism of gender ideology. This says we have an innate gender identity that can only be expressed through stereotypic behaviour and appearance, with the optional extra of body mod. It demands that we define women not by biology or socialization but only through the things that women and transwomen can share: feminine stereotypes ­ a fact concealed under the myth of our innate, mystical/magical, nebulous gender identity. And since we all have an innate gender identity, and this almost always aligns with one’s sexed body, any feminine ways that natal women display do not reflect oppressive socialization but are natural and inborn. Girls will be girls. It is no coincidence that the trans flag is pink and blue.

And like other forms of gender ideology, nonbinary trivializes women’s oppression by presenting womanhood as something you can opt out of. And, related to this, when you “question why we categorise people as women and men at all” you come very close to denying the existence of women’s distinctive oppression as a sex, within the current system. Within a sexist society female biology guarantees systematic discrimination, a point that Fain drives home.

This fake radicalism makes it very, very hard for sex-role-defiant women to fight their way clear of the new cool sexism. Fain has a telling description of its impact on three women whom she lived with in 2018:

We spent a lot of time together that year, and there were many late-night conversations about the sexism, misogyny, and male violence we had experienced. We talked about not fitting into what society had expected of women, we stopped shaving together, and we encouraged each other to not be ashamed of our natural bodies. We called rape crisis lines, organized protests, and exposed violent men in our communities…  The four of us dreamt of what a feminist world could look like… Now, one year later, all three of them identify as ‘non-binary’ — no longer a woman… In our last days together, I tried to show them a feminism that rejects gender rather than embraces its lies — but since I am ‘female’ and they are ‘not’ I could not possibly understand their pain. They said I was hateful.


 For women’s liberation

Nonbinary serves as a recruiting agent for the wider world of gender ideology. But, against immense obstacles, women’s liberationists are pushing back against this ideology, particularly in Britain. The spearhead of this opposition is Women’s Place UK. Their struggle against gender sexism is being supported by those Marxists who have not lost their way on this issue.

The SWP and Women’s Place UK

An interesting discussion on transgender issues recently took place at the annual conference of Britain’s Socialist Workers Party. It was described in the party’s weekly Socialist Worker, at the end of a report on the conference.

The SWP restated its support for gender self-id in the Gender Recognition Act. During the discussion Sally Campbell, editor of the party’s magazine Socialist Review, said “The starting point is we stand in solidarity with trans people. Being inclusive doesn’t erase anyone.” Feminist opponents of self-id, she said, see “biology as the roots of women’s oppression”. She also implied that the corporate media was hostile to the trans cause. Freer Lives has previously discussed the politics of sexual biology, the emptiness of gender identity theory, and the corporate media’s fulsome support for this theory. Most interesting in the current context is that the party line came under challenge from two directions, and that these challenges were both given space in Socialist Worker.

One member, Moyra, suggested that “socialists should adopt a broadly gender critical approach as the best way to support both trans’ rights and women’s rights.”

She said the SWP should oppose tactics such as no-platforming “gender-critical voices” and using the term “Terf”. She said belligerence around the debate was unhelpful in “trying to understand the complexities of the arguments around biology and gender”. She said, “There is an objective basis to build a unity of the oppressed between women and trans people because both groups are oppressed by the ideology of gender stereotypes.”

Moyra might reflect a wider current within the SWP, which it feels the need to acknowledge. But the party might also want to publicise her views as a way to help it balance and push back against its most hardline gender ideologists, who want to picket meetings of the women’s liberationist group Women’s Place UK.

Sally [Campbell] argued against going to the protests. “Going along to WPUK is not where we should be putting our energy,” she said. A commission laying out the SWP’s support for trans rights and backing the right to self-declare gender said “neither should we organise or encourage participation in protests outside Women’s Place UK meetings.”

Traditionally the SWP saw the picketing of progressive groups as a marker of nutty sectarian outfits. Even today, the notion of picketing a conference called Women’s Liberation 2020 must embarrass its leadership. Trying to overcome this healthy tradition, the party’s hardline gender ideologists have sought to put WPUK beyond the pale, presenting it not as a progressive group with some wrong ideas but as a bunch of bigots masquerading as progressives.

Another delegate, Kate, said groups such as Women’s Place UK (WPUK) were “giving a left face to transphobia.” She said that the group had spread “misinformation about the Gender Recognition Act” and that it only offered “criticism of trans people,” not criticism of gender. She also said it was right to join protests outside of WPUK meetings…. Laura Miles said there’s a difference between people raising legitimate questions about trans rights and “where people retail what are clearly transphobic positions”.

To see the fraudulence of the “left face” position you only have to glance through the WPUK website, carrying articles such as this denunciation of alliances with the right, written by one of the group’s founders. The WPUK approach trans activists’ demands and ideas on the basis of their impact on women, and sometimes children. They never attack trans people as such, or challenge the right of people to live by the cultural conventions of the other sex. The SWP’s hardline gender ideologists are straining to present WPUK as something it is not.


The contradictions of the SWP’s gender ideologists

Presumably, the hardline gender ideologists in the party still think of themselves working in the SWP tradition, but in practice they have broken with it. The tradition of the SWP calls for unity in action with other progressive groups, and dealing with differences through clear, consistent, sharp arguments. The politics of gender ideology calls for silencing progressive opponents through physical pressure and organizational manoeuvres and through pragmatic, manipulative arguments where ideas are picked up or abandoned case by case, according to whatever works at any given moment. The tradition of the SWP calls for a commitment to women’s liberation, expressed, for example, in Judith Orr’s Marxism and Women’s Liberation. Gender ideology redefines women in terms of what they can share with transwomen, that is, in terms of stereotypes – eroding women’s safety, dignity, and public participation, and creating a roadblock to women’s understanding of their sexual oppression.


The contradiction in the SWP as a whole

This alien presence has gained a hold in the party through the impact of neoliberalism. The SWP does not look for guidance to left wing MPs, nor to left union officials and their machines, nor to radical dictators. Nor is it caught up in ossified dogmas of Trotskyist sects. It looks to the real live working class as the way forward for the world, and to the potential of the working to class to cohere into a force that draws all the oppressed behind it for the overthrow of capitalism. But its very adherence to this tradition has exposed it more than most left groups to damage from the deep and sustained ebb in western workers’ self-activity over the last four decades. One of the ways it has tried to survive is by looking to the identity-politics milieu for influence, members, and cadre. But this has brought serious new problems.



At times this contradiction in the SWP produces feeble compromises. It is notable, for example, that Sally Campbell presented her opposition to the picketing of WPUK as a mere tactical decision: “not where we should be putting our energy”. At other times the contradiction produces vacillations.

So the SWP sometimes holds to its traditions, as in this statement in the party’s theoretical journal, condemning the no-platforming of feminists (Marxism, feminism and transgender politics December 2017):

For example, when [Julie] Bindel was invited to speak at an event in Manchester in February 2017 the website of the venue, a well-known local resource for working class history and events, was bombarded with abuse and instructed not only to withdraw the invitation but to close down the venue itself. This is not a tactic likely to win wide support, as many activists use the centre. It is also mistaken in its aims of closing down the meeting, which had been scheduled as part of LGBT+ History Month… No platform is not a tactic to be applied willy-nilly to people whose views we do not like, however offensive they may be.

At other times, the party has capitulated. The following year the SWP opposed an open letter in The Morning Star that denounced trans activists’ attempts to silence gender critical feminists. Signatories to the letter included union leaders Len McCluskey and Mark Serwotka, and Kiri Tunks, Nation Union of Teachers Vice-President. It was also signed by Lindsey German, a leading member of the Marxist group Counterfire. Those signing it made it clear that they had “a variety of positions” on the proposed GRA changes; the letter was simply a call for “action within our movement to allow debate to take place” (discussed in a previous post). The letter describes the beating of 60-year-old woman Maria MacLachlan at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park; “an incident… on a Bectu picket line in which trans activists, with no connection to the industrial dispute itself, mobbed and verbally attacked a female trade union member on the basis of having recognised her as an attendee at a similar meeting”; “masked activists blocking entrances” at a venue in Bristol and “deliberately intimidating those wishing to go inside”; and a “meeting organised by Woman’s Place UK targeted with a bomb threat which Hastings Police are investigating as a serious incident”.

 These cases are part of systematic attempts to shut down meetings organised by women at which they can discuss potential legislative changes and the impact these may have on any sex-based rights already enshrined in law.

They draw the whole of our progressive movement into disrepute.

Some trans rights activists even continue to justify the use of violence, meaning that many women are simply too frightened to attend meetings that are both public and lawful in order that they may discuss their own rights.

Other women, including ordinary women concerned for their rights, as well as those active within the trade union movement and other political campaigns, are also now anxious and fearful that they will be subjected to such attacks when engaging in any political activity, meetings, or protests.

Disgracefully, Socialist Worker stated “We believe that Mark [Serwotka] was mistaken to sign the recent letter in the Morning Star.”

This contradiction within the SWP was more or less buried during the first huge wave of support for gender ideology, which swamped both liberal and radical politics. But the Trojan-horse nature of gender ideology is increasingly exposed now, as women’s liberationists have slowly pulled together an opposition to it. They are supported by some Marxist groups and individuals, but the spearhead for the resistance is Women’s Place UK.


WPUK responds

WPUK sent a letter to Socialist Worker responding to its conference report. This response was published in SW’s Letters section in the online version of the paper. It reads in part:

We note that the only reference to women’s rights is in the session on defending trans rights – a glaring omission such as this is precisely why Woman’s Place UK (WPUK) was set up, to make sure that women’s voices will be heard.

Your report refers to WPUK “spreading misinformation about the GRA” and “only offering criticisms of trans people”. Both these allegations are false, as the thousands of people who have attended our meetings or who have endorsed our five demands could tell you. We have never “criticised” trans people and are pleased to have had trans people attend our meetings and speak on our platforms…

We welcome the fact that you will not organise or support protests outside our meetings, but you should go further and condemn attempts to stop us meeting as having no place in our movement.

The WPUK letter notes that tickets for its upcoming London conference have already sold out: “Anyone on the left who ignores this is isolating themselves from a growing movement.”


Where next for the SWP

I think the SWP can go one of two ways. It can continue to let gender ideology eat away at its politics and traditions, and leave Britain’s new flourishing women’s movement to feminists guided by patriarchy theory, and to other Marxist groups, mainly from the Communist Party tradition. Or it can oppose the sexism of gender identity theory and the erosion of women’s rights that flows from it, and at the same support the right of trans people to live according to the cultural conventions of the opposite sex, and defend them against the real bigots on the right, who think sex-stereotypical behaviour emerges naturally from our biology of birth. This would mean giving unconditional but critical support: defending trans people as an oppressed group without endorsing anti-woman ideas and demands that currently dominate trans thinking. I think that is the real basis for unity between women and trans people, and the way forward for the left.

Maya Forstater and the enforcement of gender ideology

In Britain a high-profile court ruling has just made it harder to speak out against the sexism of gender ideology.

Maya Forstater worked as a researcher at a think tank called the Centre for Global Development (CGD). She lost her job in 2019 after tweeting a range of gender-critical comments, which included an insistence that transwomen are men.

In her own summary of events leading up to the court’s decision, Forstater discusses her long term opposition to sex stereotyping (she was co-founder of the Let Toys Be Toys campaign) and how this eventually led her to the fact that stereotypes are now “being repackaged into the new idea of ‘gender identity’ — that if a girl child doesn’t conform to gender norms she might actually ‘be a boy’ (and vice versa).” She became increasingly concerned at the “impact of transgender ideology on women’s rights, on lesbians, on vulnerable young people being told they are born in the wrong body and on freedom of speech.” She eventually put these views into a series of gender critical tweets, causing her unexpected trouble with her boss.

At the Employment Appeals Tribunal (EAT) she said that the CGD had not continued her employment because of these comments, and had therefore discriminated against her. She asserted that her statements expressed philosophical beliefs of the kind protected under Britain’s Equality Act 2010.

Prior to the decision she noted the high stakes involved in the case:

If we can establish this point in law it would help people who are currently afraid to speak up for fear of losing their jobs or being treated differently by their employer. It would also help people facing discrimination outside of work. For example political parties and membership organisations that suspend people for expressing such beliefs, venues that refuse to host public meetings and social media platforms that discriminate against gender critical feminists would need to re-think their policies or they too would face claims for discrimination.

In deciding against her, the EAT was guided by an earlier case which set out five criteria for determining whether the beliefs expressed in contentious comments are genuinely “philosophical”, and therefore protected. It found that Forstater’s comments met four of these criteria, but not the last one: “It must be worthy of respect in a democratic society, be not incompatible with human dignity and not conflict with the fundamental rights of others.”

The judge said (para 90 of the decision) that Forstater was

absolutist in her view of sex, and it is a core component of her belief that she will refer to a person by the sex she considered appropriate even if it violates their dignity and/or creates an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment. The approach is not worthy of respect in a democratic society. (access via Google drive)

Louise Rea, a solicitor advising the CGD in the case, hammered home the key point:

Employment Judge Tayler acknowledged that there is nothing to stop the claimant campaigning against the proposed revisions to the Gender Recognition Act or, expressing her opinion that there should be some spaces that are restricted to women assigned female at birth. However, she can do so without insisting on calling transwomen men. It is the fact that her belief necessarily involves violating the dignity of others which means it is not protected under the Equality Act 2010.


British law and gender identity theory

Writing about the Forstater case, legal commentator Darren Newman notes the context of existing law in Britain: “importantly, the right of a trans person to have their acquired gender fully recognised in law was established by that Court in Goodwin v United Kingdom. It was as a result of that case that the UK Government introduced the Gender Recognition Act 2004 and the concept of a Gender Recognition Certificate – the effect of which is that:

…the person’s gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person’s sex becomes that of a woman).
(S.9(1) GRA 2004)”

In an excellent defense of Forstater, Ruth Serwotka points out that the Gender Recognition Act’s “legal fiction of changing one’s sex” exists in tension with elements of the Equality Act that maintain the right of women-only facilities to exclude transwomen in certain circumstances, “known as exemptions”. But it is hard to deny the degree of support that gender ideology, and in particular gender identity theory, now receives in British law.

As previously discussed, this support extends more generally throughout the institutions of neoliberalism, reflecting the new norms of official society, that is, the norms set or tolerated by the capitalist class, and articulated by the intellectuals, commentators etc. who consciously or unconsciously shape their thinking to the current needs of capitalism.


Gender identity and the material world

Does elite support mean that gender identity is real? For only if it is real can challenging it be seen as an affront to trans people’s dignity.

The reality of gender identity is usually advanced as a mystical/magical inner truth known to the individuals concerned. And this is usually defended by a circular argument: this inner “knowledge” is real because saying anything else is a horrible violation of trans people’s innate gender identity. The circularity of the argument is protected from scrutiny by three things. First and foremost is the support the theory receives from the conservative and liberal corporate media, and from neoliberal institutions more generally. Another factor is the sheer breadth of support for gender ideology: it must be true if it’s endorsed by everyone from Tories to Trotskyists (the strained attempts by pro-gender Marxists to establish a materialist basis for gender identity have been previously discussed in Freer Lives). The other protective factor is people’s understandable reluctance to challenge the heartfelt belief of a group of people facing hostility from social conservatives and violent haters, and rejection from many ordinary people. But none of these factors remove the mysticism, circularity, or sexism of the argument. Gender identity is a fiction.


The sexual binary

Paragraph 41 of the EAT’s decision states:

On the totality of the Claimant’s evidence it was clear that she considers there are two sexes, male and female, there is no spectrum in sex and there are no circumstances whatsoever in which a person can change from one sex to another, or to being of neither sex… If a person has a Gender Recognition Certificate this would not alter the Claimant’s position. (access via Google drive)

The judge described such as view as “absolutist” at a time when “biological opinion is increasingly moving away from a[n] absolutist approach”.

Is there really no sexual binary? Sexes arose as the key condition for sexual reproduction, which involves guess how many sexes. The reproductive tract takes a male form, a female form and… not many others. True, for human beings sexuality can no longer be reduced to biology; here as in other areas, humans broke through the fixed, narrow routines of animal life, making sexual life varied, and enriched by deep personal interactions. But this does not alter the binary nature of the sexes themselves (see earlier discussion in Freer Lives and Do women exist? by James Robb).

When gender ideologues tell us that sex is a spectrum, and speak of people with chromosomal or other irregularities, we are left to assume that such people are trans or fluid, or more likely to be; left to assume that the men with these irregularities are more likely to be “feminine”. Left to assume, for nothing is ever made clear. Like so many anti-working class theorists, gender ideologues despise clarity. Ideas are to be picked up or discarded on pragmatic grounds. Whenever it suits, these same ideologues indignantly dismiss all biological considerations in favour of the mystical/magical inner truth of gender identity.

The fact that some scientists now deny the sexual binary does not reflect scientific method, or the knowledge accumulated through it. It reflects the changing needs of our rulers, and the way they shape public thinking.


The ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class

The capitalist class has adopted gender ideology so that they can use its sexism to help maintain the oppression of women, to which the bosses are addicted. The whole point of attacking the sexual binary is to cast doubt on sex itself as an alternative to “gender”, that is, to sexist social convention, as a way of defining women. Transwomen can only express their womanhood through the cultural conventions of femininity (apart from the optional extra of body modification). But crucially gender ideology also applies this thinking to natal women: their womanhood can no longer be defined by their biology and a lifetime of female socialisation – that is exclusionary hate talk which, as Maya Forstater discovered, can get you into real trouble. Natal women, as a category, can only be women on grounds they share, or are said to share, with transwomen – only because they gossip, gush, do their hair; only because as kids they played with dolls, loved pink, and wore frilly dresses, as so many transwomen longed to do.

Such a huge change in public thinking inevitably provokes resistance from sections of the right. Some right wingers want to return to traditional stereotypes, where female biology is the natural source of femininity. Others are simply overwhelmed by the suddenness and enormity of the claims and demands now being made by gender ideology, and the challenges they raise to children, to free speech, and to the dignity of women, seen through a conservative lens. More politically minded right wingers, including some right-of-centre feminists, want to use the trans issue to discredit the left and win progressive women to neoliberalism. But all this is secondary.

Gender ideology is in essence an attack by the bosses on working women. This has an impact on all women since it redefines them in sexist stereotypic terms and in doing so unleashes a series of consequent practical attacks on women’s rights. But the target is working women since the bosses need them to continue to perform unpaid labour raising today’s tomorrow’s and yesterday’s wage slaves: gender ideology is just one more form of sexism designed to reconcile women to this role. But an attack on working women is also an attack on the working class as a whole. This is a fight for women’s liberation, but also a class battle of workers against bosses.

Every socialist should be supporting the efforts of feminists such as Woman’s Place UK,  Fair Play for Women and Feminist Current to oppose gender sexism. Marxist groups and journals such as the Morning Star, Redline and Counterfire have led the way in doing that. Pro-gender Marxists are on the wrong side of the barricades, they have lost their way. We should all be standing with Maya Forstater.


Making gender ideology safe for conservatives

Australian transwoman Cate McGregor – Order of Australia awardee, a significant military figure, and former cricket commentator – has written an article discussing “the trauma and challenge of gender transition” in The Weekend Australian Magazine (16-17 November 2019 p24-27; paywall access). McGregor talks for example of the “recurrence of my repressed gender dysphoria in late 2011,” and how “I have flirted with self-extinction” ever since.

The article mentions how, in 2018, McGregor was asked by shock-jock Alan Jones to deliver the Anzac commemorative address at a tiny town near McGregor’s birthplace in Queensland. Anzac Day celebrates the role of Australian and New Zealand soldiers in World War One and later conflicts. Their bravery and self-sacrifice is used in part to conceal the fact that these were grotesque wars waged for empire rather than freedom and democracy. But the key role of this special day is to build the myth of an “Anzac spirit” – courage and high ideals dashed with irreverence and “mateship” – as a core feature of Australian national identity.

McGregor’s speech was well received by the mixed crowd: “on this day Australia lived up to its spirit. Despite the detractors, Anzac still touches the hearts of the vast majority of us… In commemorating the dead of real wars, we transcend the arid, futile culture wars…. I suspect that every political view on the spectrum was represented in that crowd; from the rainbow flags I gleaned that most sexual preferences and gender identities were, too.” McGregor wants to incorporate transgender people within the Anzac spirit.

The Murdoch stable in Australia

Of special interest is the media platform for this tale: the weekend edition of Murdoch’s national flagship, The Australian. As previously discussed on this blog, the Murdoch media in Australia has had a particular role in the trans trend. This takes two forms: there is a rough division of labour between its national and state based newspapers. The latter, with huge circulations, present as the voice of the common person. Individual columnists may be right wing, others moderate, but overall they seek to connect with the mass of ordinary people around current issues, explaining them in conservative terms to pull readers rightwards. Occasionally this also means educating readers in new ideas they should absorb.

As part of this charter they have propagandized time and again for gender ideology, explaining to readers how some boy (and maybe his mother too) knew deep down that he was a girl, due to his love for all things girly (eg here, or this paywall article which tells us how a transwoman “used to envy the girls at primary school, their freedom to wear dresses and express their femininity”). I believe that the real underlying message in all these stories is the naturalization of female stereotypes. Women are being told that they have a feminine gender identity, aligned with their female bodies, and are therefore innately imbued with the tendencies to self-decorate, be charming, etc etc. Stale, confining typecasts are freshened up for the modern, critical world.

The Australian on the other hand plays to a constituency that is already firmly right wing, providing it with news and resources for arguments with liberals. It has denounced the trans trend’s entanglements with identity politics, political correctness, and the left. For these reasons it led an attack on Safe Schools, an anti-bullying program that brings gender ideology into the classroom (and which had been approvingly cited by Murdoch’s conservative Victorian paper, the Herald Sun). The Australian’s attacks have been worn as a badge of honour by the pro-gender left, using them to affirm gender ideology’s progressive credentials. To my knowledge, however, it has never attacked the central, sexist idea of gender identity.

Seemingly the Murdoch empire wants to separate the “good part” of the trans trend – its naturalization of oppressive female stereotypes – from its “bad” attachments to the left. McGregor is well placed to help here. The stable’s NSW paper, the Daily Telegraph, once quoted McGregor’s initial opposition to the Safe Schools program: “Safe Schools teaches a derivative of Queer Theory, which I believe leads trans people into a blind alley.” The recent piece in the Weekend Australian Magazine feels like a continuation of this approach, letting right wing readers know that gender ideology is something to embrace.





WLRN’s Thistle Pettersen Interviews Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan

Cindy Sheehan is an anti-war activist, whose son was killed during the Iraq War in 2004. “Since then, she has traveled in the USA and abroad to speak out against US led wars and war time economics that fuel endless wars. In October 2019 Ms. Sheehan was dis-invited from speaking at an anti-war event in Carbondale Illinois due to trans activist pressure on the organizers of the event.” This interview on Women’s Liberation News radio “focuses on the story of her de-platforming at that event and also her thoughts and analysis of what trans activism is and the role it is playing in leftist movements.”

via WLRN’s Thistle Pettersen Interviews Anti-War Activist Cindy Sheehan

Astroturfing: a brilliant article on the corporate funders of the trans trend

Astroturfing: “the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization… to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by grassroots participants. It is a practice intended to give the statements or organizations credibility by withholding information about the source’s financial connection.” (Wikipedia)

dollar handshake small


The astroturf nature of the trans trend is discussed in the 2018 article Inauthentic selves: the modern LGBTQ+ movement is run by philanthropic astroturf and based on junk science – a tremendously useful if rather freewheeling piece, written by “Sue Donym”. Transgender organisations in the USA, the author says, operate not as grassroots bodies but top-down, funded and guided by major corporations and billionaires, usually connected to Big Pharma. Gender ideology thereby exerts a massive influence on academia and the health system, and on social media, all based on phony science. The effect of all this is to reinforce sex stereotypes, commit growing numbers of children to drug dependency, physical mutilation and sterilization, and drain the life from gay and lesbian communities.

Inauthentic selves is over 23,000 words. The current article attempts to summarise some of its main points, finishing with a slightly different take on some issues.


Philanthropy and trans

“The primary funders of the transgender movement,” the author tells us, “are large philanthropic foundations.” Often such donors are not disclosed on tax returns or annual reports. Also “a lot of money comes through the Tides Foundation,” a conduit for big donors’ contributions which “effectively anonymizes those donations.” Nevertheless a picture emerges. “Almost every philanthropist I investigated,” the author says, “had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry”.

One key player is the Arcus Foundation. Its founder and president is Jon Stryker, an “heir to Stryker Corp, the medical supplies company…. His fingerprints are all over organizations… which advocate for the same pro-trans policies in unison.” Another major force is The Open Society Foundations (OSF), “the largest philanthropic organization in the world. Chaired and funded by hedge fund maestro George Soros….  Open Society Foundations are supposedly decentralized and the boards running operations are autonomous. This ignores the fact that all activities carried out by the OSF are funded by one man.” The OSF is prominent, the author says, in pushing “for gender markers on legal documentation” and “self-identification laws”.

A third contributor is “Jennifer Pritzker, (formerly Col. James Pritzker),” a trans lesbian. “Heir to the Hyatt Hotel fortune, Pritzker funds both transgender and far-right causes through their Tawani Foundation” and also “donated hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars, to the Republican Party and its candidates in 2016.” Pritzker gave millions in start-up funding “to the Gender And Sex Development Program, a transgender youth clinic in Chicago launched in 2013,” and also helps to fund the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), GLAAD, and “other large LGBTQI+ organizations.” (This reflects divisions within the Republican Party over transgender. One Reuters correspondent has described bathroom legislation as “a wedge issue for Republicans, pitting the party’s pro-business branch against social conservatives”.)

Another billionaire Republican donor that funds trans causes is Paul Singer, “notorious for buying up Argentine debt and taking the country to court for a debt judgment” who also unsurprisingly “opposes raising taxes on the 1%”. And yet another billionaire donor is Daniel Loeb who “runs one of the largest hedge funds on Wall Street: Elliot Management.”


The impact

The largesse from these sources funds astroturfing. Astroturfing sometimes involves “the use of Twitter bots… on internet comment sections,” as well as “paid commenters who repeat the same message ad nauseam… posting under hundreds of different identities”, whose work is gradually concealed as the messages are then picked up and promulgated by real ordinary people. Mainly, however, transgender astroturfing takes place “through grants to existing non-profit organizations, or through creating new ones that look grassroots” but which “strangle any form of actual grassroots organization with ease.”

Inauthentic selves spells out the links between these funders and organisations officially or effectively focused on transgender issues. It indicates that they are not grassroots bodies topped up with token grants by companies after good PR, but creatures of the corporate world. They include:

  • Global Action For Trans Equality (GATE), funded by The Open Society Foundation and The Arcus Foundation.
  • GLAAD, formerly the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation but which now “seems to have forgotten the ‘gay and lesbian’ part” and which “has been criticized for lacking members born and socialized as female.” Its funders “include the Tawani Foundation, Arcus, and a collection of Silicon Valley companies, such as Google, Salesforce, and Comcast.”
  • The National LGBTQ Task Force, which has received donations in the hundreds of thousands from the Arcus Foundation, the Ford Foundation, major anonymous donors, the pharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences and “a gaggle of banks, cable channels or providers as well as Hilton Hotels.”
  • The National Center For Transgender Equality (NCTE), “started with the aid of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force” and which received millions in corporate contributions and grants
  • the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) which again receives “generous support” from corporate partners; a major one, the author tells us, is “Pfizer, which makes the estrogen drug Premarin”.

Such astroturf organisations “often train their own organizers: one such example on the left is the Equality Federation, which trains center-left LGBTQI+ ‘thought leaders’. It features six figure donations from the Gill Foundation and the Tides Foundation, among others. It is a name plucked out of a very large hat — there are dozens of other ‘Institutes’ and ‘Fellowships’ that train professional activists in professional Kool-Aid drinking across the political spectrum.”


Some of what do they do

The NCTE’s National Transgender Discrimination Survey (NTDS) “is forming the basis of transgender policy around the world.” It has been cited as authoritative by “the Human Rights Campaign, the Transgender Law Center, the National LGBTQ Task Force, a litany of other lobby groups and the Democratic Party.” Yet its sample “was built on self-selection….  the survey could have been taken over and over again by the same person…. It was also meant to provide US-based statistics, but had no restrictions on of which country the survey could be taken from… Supposedly NCTE cleaned the dataset, but I am not sure how you can clean a survey with such flaws.”

Another body, Freedom For All Americans “donated hundreds of thousands of dollars towards the bathroom fight in Anchorage [Alaska]… one of the catch-cries of the trans movement is that they are the most ignored and the most marginalized group in America,” yet they were “capable of outspending the Christian Right on an 8–1 basis” in that campaign. Freedom For All Americans is “run by Masen Davis, who used to be the Executive Director for the Transgender Law Center (an organization that is also funded by large philanthropic groups and corporates.)” It “lists some of its most prominent donors as Paul Singer, Tim Gill and Daniel Loeb,” mentioned above.


Eclipsing LGB

Funding dedicated to trans causes dwarfs that dedicated to LGB causes, and general LGBT funding goes mainly to trans issues.

The National Centre for Lesbian Rights (NCLR) was “one of the biggest receivers of philanthropic funding in 2016.” It “scarcely mentions lesbians on its home page…  but has three different sections for transgender legal cases”. It did however focus on lesbians when it organized a boycott of the Michigan Womyn’s Festival, intended for people with female anatomy (although not excluding transwomen). “After criticism from a range of lesbian sources, it backed down. But Michfest bowed to the pressure, and unable to continue, now no longer exists.”

Meanwhile The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has been renamed the National LGBTQ Task Force, “criticized for ignoring lesbian issues by lesbian commentators, including conferences with only few or no lesbian events — like the NCLR.” The schedule of the Task Force’s 2018 Creating Change conference offered “a total of four events for lesbian women… but twenty on the topic of ‘sexual freedom’” and “nine sessions for ‘Transgender Justice’ alone”.

The NCTE’s co-founder, transwoman Mara Keisling, led “a coalition of ‘400 LGBT rights organizations’, called ‘United ENDA’, which prominent transgender activist Dana Beyer, interviewed in the Washington Blade, credited with making sure ‘there have been with few exceptions […] no instances of any gay activism or legislation that did not include trans people.’”


Naturalising sex stereotypes

The author cites a definition of gender offered on the website of the trans-focused Human Rights Campaign: “Gender refers to the traditional or stereotypical roles, behaviors, activities and attributes that a given society consider appropriate for men and women.” But as the author observes, gender ideology “presents gender stereotypes and gender as an innate thing”, corrected where necessary by medicalization or simply legal sex change. “If stereotypes are what the transgender movement is about, this is only going to harm women and gay and lesbian and bisexual people… who have the most to lose by gender stereotypes being encoded in the law.”


The impact on the health industry: pushing dangerous drugs

This ideology has implications for children. Sue Donym discusses three doctors – Diane Ehrensaft, Stephen Rosenthal, and Johanna Olson – who “have all had a financial relationship with AbbVie, maker of Androgel and Lupron, amongst other hormone replacement therapies and GnRH agonists. All three have gone on to promote the off-label use of AbbVie products to treat transgenderism.”drugs small

The author quotes this passage from Ehrensaft’s paper Gender nonconforming youth: current perspectives: “When it comes to knowing a child’s gender, it is not for us to tell, but for the children to say. In contrast to the watchful waiting model, once information is gathered to assess a child’s gender status, action is taken to allow that child to exercise that gender.” This is despite Ehrensaft’s admission that “at this point in history a child who begins puberty blockers at Tanner Stage 2 [ie the first stage of actual puberty, FL] and proceeds directly to cross-sex hormones will be rendered infertile”. The author also quotes from an interview with Psychology Art in whichEhrensaft advocates taking away children if the parents believe in the concept of biological sex”.

Stephen Rosenthal has stated, in an Endocrine Today interview, that hormone-affecting GNRH agents “have been used for many years and have been found to be very effective and specific for blocking puberty in a completely reversible manner.” Sue Donym responds: “This is contradicted by the fact that GnRH agents are currently the subject of multiple investigations for causing irreversible bone health problems, something Rosenthal does not acknowledge in this interview, but does in his research.”

The work of such doctors dovetails, of course, with the purposes of the drug companies. Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) “began its life being marketed as a cure-all, for the ills of menopause to the fountain of youth… Its most common use over the 20th century was to treat menopause.” In 2002 it was discovered that “HRT in women led to raised rates of strokes and breast cancer among other deleterious side effects. Lawsuits, particularly against the pharmaceutical company Wyeth (purchased by Pfizer in 2009), quickly followed, and the number of prescriptions of one of Wyeth’s most profitable medications dropped 66%… It later emerged that Wyeth and other drug companies marketing HRT had known about the risks but had deliberately concealed them to continue selling profitable drugs.” But now, of course, gender ideology has come to Big Pharma’s rescue.


The impact on academia: medical ghostwriting

All this is promoted through medical ghostwriting, which is, essentially, “a pharmaceutical company producing a peer-reviewed article promoting use of a drug it makes, often for off-label uses.” This is done “by hiring a commercial medical writing company to produce papers that can then be published in academic journals. An academic is attributed authorship, even though they have not written the paper. The paper contains conclusions that support the pharmaceutical company’s marketing desires for a particular drug.” (Sue Donym cites the case of the drug Prempro and the Wyeth corporation. See also article in Plos Medicine and news item in Nature.) “While medical ghostwriting is clearly unethical, it’s not illegal. Because academic publications aren’t considered promotional, it does not fall afoul of off-label marketing laws…. The New York Times estimated in 2009 that 5–11% of medical articles are ghostwritten, though this ultimately depends on the drug. With one drug (sertraline), between 18% and 44% of articles on the subject were funded and ghostwritten by Pfizer.”


Three differences

Sue Donym has done us an immense service through this research. And it certainly aligns with many of the themes of Freer Lives, particularly in terms of the top down nature of the trans trend. I do however have three differences – perhaps just matters of emphasis – with the author.

Firstly, it’s important to see that gender ideology (my term, not one she uses) is not being pushed just by Big Pharma, but by the capitalist class as a whole, not for short term profits but to help it address a particular challenge posed by changing economic and social conditions. Women’s mass participation in the workforce has increasingly led them to see through old tropes that men are superior and very different to them. But the capitalist class needs women to keep seeing themselves as inferior and as natural nurturers so that they are willing to keep bearing the huge burden of unpaid work in the home, raising and maintaining today’s tomorrow’s and yesterday’s wage slaves free of charge for the bosses – a crucial underpinning to modern capitalism. Gender ideology answers this need: it is a cool updated sexism that bolsters tame liberal feminism and despicably affirms the naturalness of women’s submissive femininity.

This why we can see a trend toward simple, drug-free self-identification of adult trans people: this simple self-ID may not suit profit-greedy Big Pharma but works just as well as drug-dependency for the ruling class overall, because it sends out exactly the same sexist message about females’ natural femininity. It’s true that the power of Big Pharma, and a self-interested medical lobby, may partly explain why drugs are still pushed on children and teens, but even here it may not be the only factor at work. I suspect that the push for drug dependency is also driven by an awareness that kids, being truly “fluid”, might otherwise abandon trans identities before very long.

This leads to my second concern. The author heavily stresses the fact that kids who rebel against stereotypes would often grow up to be lesbians and gay men if not tracked into trans identities. But other rebels, as I think she would agree, are simply tomboy girls and “girlish” boys who go on to become heterosexual. And tomboys are the tip of the iceberg since all girls must to some extent resist confinement to femininity. This matters, because is vital to oppose the notion that resistance to sex stereotypes is a minority concern. That is one of the main police-work messages of gender ideology, which acts to prevent generalization of resistance to the female population at large. Girls are not only being taught that their femininity is natural, but also that rebellion against stereotypes means taking a drastic leap, joining the small minority of those other people over there – cool perhaps but very different – at a time when most kids are desperate to fit in.

The bosses’ use of gender ideology to attack working women as a whole is the ultimate driver of individual childhood transitioning, a sine qua non and essential backdrop. Lesbophobia and homophobia may drive transitioning at the family level, for people who have moved on from traditional biology-is-destiny prejudices yet remain anti-gay, but these people are working within a context they didn’t create.

Thirdly, left and liberal support for gender ideology, while disastrously wrong, is more than Kool Aid-drinking. These people are not passive dupes. They see that trans people get ostracized and sometimes attacked by bigots for adopting the cultural conventions of the opposite sex. They see that the gay-hating anti-abortion right also hates trans people, and that many right wing commentators attack some of the demands of the trans lobby. The social conservatives are not entirely a spent force, as we currently see in the US Supreme Court; true, the capitalist class has largely abandoned them, but under crisis conditions the bosses could swing back to them as part of an all-out assault on workers, women, LGB and ethnic minority scapegoats.

The very valuable material in Sue Donym’s piece should be used to aid our main task: winning the left and workers’ movement away from gender ideology.

(See also the article’s comments section.)

Dollar handshake image by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

Pills image by Peggy und Marco Lachmann-Anke from Pixabay

Against bigotry and gender ideology: the US Supreme Court on transgender

supreme-court-545534_960_720The US Supreme Court is hearing the case of a transwoman sacked by a social conservative employer. Aimee (formerly Anthony) Stephens was fired as funeral director by Harris Funeral Homes in 2013 after disclosing intentions to present at work as a woman. Stephens is represented by David Cole, national legal director of the ACLU, while the funeral home is represented by the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). Trump, pandering to the bigots in his electoral base, supports the funeral home. Legal briefs can be viewed here.

The court is also hearing two cases involving gay men. Gerald Lynn Bostock is a former child welfare services coordinator, sacked after he joined a gay sports team. Donald Zarda, now deceased, was a New York skydiving instructor, fired after telling a client that he was same-sex attracted. His estate is pursuing his case. Hearings began on 8 October, but decisions are not expected until mid-2020.

Alongside the legal arguments a range of political issues are in play.


Sex and sex stereotypes

boy-3740616_1920 Image by a href=httpspixabay.comusersMarcTheShark1287-8271271utm_source=link-attribution&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=image&utm_content=3740616Marc Leosa from a href=httpspi

Trans people adopt some of the stereotypes of the opposite sex. But they defy those of their birth sex, which inflames social conservatives. In this instance the funeral home owner demanded compliance with a dress code “applicable to Stephens’ biological sex”. David Cole quotes the funeral home owner, Thomas Rost, as saying that “a male should look like a… man, and a woman should look like a woman.”

The Supreme Court (aka “SCOTUS”) has previously interpreted the US Civil Rights Act as banning discrimination based on sex stereotypes: in 1989 it “found for a woman who had not been promoted because her employers found her too aggressive and her manner of dress not feminine enough.” In the current case it will decide whether this decision can be applied to transgender people.


The right uses feminist arguments

During the court hearing, a lawyer for the funeral home argued that if we don’t let employers sack people for being trans, women will suffer. In doing so he played heavily on concerns raised by gender critical feminists:

Hypothetical questions about what the court’s eventual decision will mean for society featured prominently, particularly as it pertained to gender-specific restrooms and sports programs. John Bursch, an attorney for the funeral home… warned that transgender women will work at shelters for women.

Cole’s position “would mean that a women’s overnight shelter must hire a man who identifies as a woman to serve as a counsellor to women who have been raped, trafficked, and abused and also share restroom, shower, and locker room facilities with them,” Bursch said.

One brief supporting the funeral home argues that “Judicially rewriting sex discrimination in Title VII [of the Civil Rights Act] will spill over into other federal laws that prohibit sex discrimination… It will deny women and girls fair opportunities to compete in sports, to ascend to the winner’s podium, and to receive critical scholarships. It will also require domestic-abuse shelters to allow men to sleep in the same room as female survivors of rape and violence. And it may dictate that doctors and hospitals provide transition services even in violation of their religious beliefs.” (quoted by Business Insider)

Meanwhile the right wing New York Post recently ran an article from a woman complaining, quite correctly, that transwomen’s entry into female sports events undermines women.

Unfortunately, some gender critical feminists are allying with the right.


Some gender critical feminists collaborate with the right

The Stranger newspaper reports:

In August, the radical feminist group the Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) filed an amicus brief in support of Harris Funeral Homes. “WoLF’s interest in this case stems from its interest in protecting the safety and privacy of women and girls and preserving women’s sex-based civil rights,” the brief reads. “Those rights have been threatened by recent court decisions and agency policies that embrace the vague concept of ‘gender identity’ in a manner that overrides statutory and Constitutional protections that are based explicitly on ‘sex,’ which is precisely what Respondents are asking the Court to do here.”

WoLF goes on to argue that Stephens is trying to redefine “female” from an immutable, biological category to, basically, a feeling: If you say you’re female, you are one. And if the court rules in her favor, according to WoLF, it will threaten the protection of females in all manner of ways, including in sex-segregated spaces like prisons, locker rooms, and shelters for abused women.

WoLF members demonstrated in support of their stand outside the Supreme Court at a rally “co-sponsored by Concerned Women of America, a homophobic and anti-feminist organisation”. Pinknews reported on this, adding that black British lesbian activist Linda Bellos was there supporting this rally, “backing the Trump administration’s efforts to make it legal to fire LGBT+ people.”

The Stranger notes that “the decision to work with ADF has not gone over well with other people who may agree with WoLF that the conflation of sex with gender identity is ultimately harmful for females.”

In 2017, for instance, a group of detransitioned women issued a statement after ADF started contacting detransitioners to participate in a potential malpractice suit against medical professionals.

“The ADF has fought against women’s reproductive rights, LGBT non-discrimination laws, LGBT anti-bullying campaigns in school, and same-sex marriage,” they wrote an open letter to detransitioners. “We ask you to think critically about this and reject any ‘support’ that would allow the ADF to treat our painful histories and financial vulnerability as an opportunity to promote their anti-LGBT and anti-woman agenda.”

Ruth Serwotka, a leading gender critical feminist in Britain, points out that WOLF have previously worked with the right wing Christian group Family Policy – “A more perverse or problematic alliance could not be imagined.” She adds:

The drift towards the narrative of acceptance of this alliance with hard right forces… is the start of a path towards the co-option of the growing women’s movement by the forces that exist to defeat us… Yes, it is an outrage that we are bullied and intimidated by sections of the left. But still we cannot make an alliance with people who would remove our bodily sovereignty, curtail our freedom to resist, enforce a sex-segregated family model, police compliance with subservient gender roles, remove rights from women of colour and prevent human rights for lesbians and gay men, and for transgender people.

Serwotka also provides some important historical context:

Often reflecting differences of class, some middle class suffragettes, including Emmeline Pankhurst herself, had rather a soft spot for nationalism and war. Small but not insignificant elements within the militant [suffragette] WSPU bought into an ugly reactionary nationalism. A few allowed that internal logic to play out and became supporters of the British fascist Oswald Mosley in the 1930s.

The notion that women, simply by banding together, can be divorced from wider political and social forces, is reactionary nonsense.



Alliances with the right are always toxic

Conservatives can oppose gender ideology from the right, just as they could oppose Russia’s bombing of Syrian rebels as a challenge to US imperialism rather than as a means to crush a popular revolt; just as many right wingers have supported Brexit out of nationalism and racism rather than as a blow against the neoliberal, austerity-driving EU. But we cannot join forces with imperialists, racists or bigots without aiding them and undermining ourselves.

Alliances with the right always benefit the right, not our side. They have the weight of tradition behind them, the “common sense” inherited from the past. Right wingers usually have greater resources. Most importantly, our side relies on the ongoing, day-to-day commitment of ordinary people rather than bureaucracies or money machines, and support from ordinary working people melts away when they are confused or disillusioned by what we are saying and doing – and that’s just what happens when we cuddle up to known enemies.


Support Aimee Stephens, oppose gender ideology

We face a war on two fronts. Any victory for trans rights is likely to be exploited by the corporate mass media to reinforce gender ideology and the sexist redefinition of women. The neoliberal establishment is working hard to shift the “natural” foundation for women’s feminine inferiority from biology to a mystical inner essence known as gender identity. In official documents, this mystical notion is slowly replacing the material reality of sex; much of the scientific establishment has betrayed science by denying the sexual binary. A victory for Aimee Stephens in the Supreme Court may turn out to be one more milestone in the consolidation of gender ideology as the new orthodoxy.

However, gender ideology is not the same as transgender people. Stripped of this sexist wrapping, they are simply people who take up their right to live by the cultural conventions of the opposite sex, challenging traditional sexist beliefs as they do so. The sacking of Aimee Stephens was an attack on human rights and workers’ rights. And a clear-cut, wholesale victory for hardline social conservativism could also set up a broader attack on gays and women, as has been argued by Gillian Branstetter, media relations manager for the National Centre for Transgender Equality: “If it’s legal to fire Aimee Stephens for being transgender, it very likely becomes legal to fire a lot of people who aren’t transgender but who don’t conform to stereotypes.”

Progressives need to fight the sexist redefinition of women, fight intrusions into women’s spaces, sporting contests and organisations, fight the mutilation and sterilization of children, fight against gender ideologists’ campaigns to sack academic and medical critics and to silence progressive opponents. But the war against this new sexism is only set back by siding with old-guard bigotry. In the Supreme Court battle, the bigots are the main enemy.


Supreme Court image by skeeze from Pixabay

It’s a girl image by Marc Leos from Pixabay

Women’s march image by Robert Jones from Pixabay