First of all, I should probably caveat this post with the usual disclaimer that I was biologically born a woman; my gender is female and though I self-identify as a “liberal” feminist, some people (misogynistic men, usually) would consider me a “radical” feminist, mostly because I wear dungarees, have bright hair, and have opinions. I generally identify as “a human being”. I don’t think your sexuality is anyone else’s business. I’m going to write this blog post, anyway…
^ Disclaimer: that was also the most “millennial” thing I have ever written. Sorry.
I’ve been wanting to write about the JK Rowling Twitter storm for a while, but I wanted my response to be thoughtful. I wanted to talk sensibly about what she said and why it’s problematic, in a rational way. I do not agree with the response she received. It is never okay to threaten someone and this “left-wing” bullying mob mentality has to stop. Please, for the love of God! I want to explain why I found what she said problematic to people who identify as – and use the “label” – “trans”, as well as to (perceived “radical”) feminists, like myself.
I am calling an identity a “label” (on purpose) because I strongly, and firmly, believe that “gender” is a social construction. I’m not just saying that to be “de rigeur” or appear “woke” or whatever gen-y call it. I am saying that because this is what I honestly believe. I do also believe in biology. I believe there is a biological difference between people who are born with a penis (almost always labeled a “man”) and people born with a vagina (almost always labeled a “woman”). I don’t consider myself to be “woke”. I’m going to just be myself, writing this. I don’t intend to insult, or offend, anyone.
So the context, if you’ve been living under a bus (and who would blame you? After all, we’re still in the midst of a pandemic, but I suppose everyone has forgotten about that!), JK Rowling wrote some stuff on Twitter about “sex”.
Let’s be honest, she could’ve phrased that in a less offensive way. I don’t think anyone in the “trans” community is trying to erase the experience of (biological) sex for a start!
But I want to pick this apart because… and I think this probably goes without saying, but… biological sex is a meaningful construct in all of our lives, but it is especially meaningful to those who struggle with their gender identity and don’t confirm to “societal norms”. (It’s also important to sexuality, but I don’t intend to talk about that in a great amount of detail here.)
I’m going to back it up to GCSE level because there’s just too much to pick apart in that tweet, without doing so.
Let’s look at “gender” and “sex” as two completely separate constructs.
- The biological sex to which you are born: i.e. “with a penis” or “with a vagina”. I’m going to try to make a point here by referring to these groups of people, in short-hand, as WiP or WiV. But you will know them as the social constructs, to which we are all familiar: “man” or “woman“. I am choosing not to use those terms, on purpose, to make a point about social constructions. There are biological characteristics that are common to WiP (man) or WiV (woman). Some examples: WiP tend to be more muscular; they tend to be physically stronger; they tend to be taller; they tend to have more testosterone in their bodies; they tend to have deeper voices; they do not have the biology to grow a child inside their bodies; they excrete a liquid that can be used to impregnate WiV.WiV (woman) tends to be smaller; they tend to have more body fat; they tend to have fat tissue on their chest – which are functional in child-rearing; they have different biological “parts”, which mean they can produce a child inside their bodies; they have menstruation cycles that enable them to child bear; they tend to have wider hips.
- The gender assigned to you based on the biological sex to which you are born. This is generally referred to as male/female but I am again going to use different words to make a point here. I am going to use the words: “feminine” and “masculine” instead.So “gender” is a social construct. It has been, purposefully, created in our society to split WiV and WiP into two separate camps. We believe that gender is binary, because biological sex is binary and these terms are often indiscernible in discourse because we use very similar terminology to describe them.
The “feminine” gender is associated with “girlie” things: the colour pink, barbie dolls, being arm-candy/a trophy to a man, passivity, aesthetics, “to be looked at-ness”. We tell little girls that they should wear pink and they should wear certain clothes (dresses). We tell little girls they should dream of being a princess, who will be rescued by some man, who will live happily-ever-after, once they catch a man, get married and have his children. The ‘feminine” needs not accomplish anything else. “She” is a muse for the male gaze. “She” is pretty. “She” is worthy for her beauty. “Her” value is based on who she marries. “She” does not need to accomplish anything herself. “Her” place is beside a man.
The “masculine” gender is associated with “manly” things: the colour blue, GI Joe (The Army), fighting, being active, doing stuff, being brave, being a leader, being fearless, having adventures. We tell little boys they should wear blue and they should wear certain clothes (trousers). We tell little boys they should dream of being an astronaut or a rocket scientist or a doctor or a lawyer – or whatever the hell they want! They would never be rescued by a woman (!!!); they won’t live happily-ever-after from meeting some woman, getting married and having children. Their focus is on work and accomplishments. The “masculine” gets stuff done. “He” is active. “He” is the protagonist. “He” is not a muse. “He” is an active practitioner of whatever the hell he wants. “His” value is based on what he does in his life. “He” has to accomplish things. “His” place is in a “boardroom”.
I am being deliberately facetious to show you how ridiculous these concepts are. Truth is, and I know most people see this to be true, “masculine” and “feminine” exist on a spectrum. Some of us have “masculine” qualities, despite the fact we identify as “female”; in spite of our biology; in spite of the fact we have “heteronormative” relationships, we don’t fit in the cookie cutter mould of these genders either!
Many radical feminists have been saying, for a very long-time, that gender should be abolished but these constructs are so “normalised” into our culture that it actually takes quite a lot of bravery and grit to say, “Actually, that “gender” doesn’t work for me. I want to wear blue dungarees. I want to “boss” people around because that’s my personality and if I was a man, you’d say I had “leadership skills” – you wouldn’t call me “bossy”! Likewise, if you don’t want to look like a barbie doll, it takes some bravery to say “Actually, that “gender” doesn’t work for me. I want to have bright red hair, a lumpy body and I don’t want to shave my legs. Thanks though!”
Of course, it shouldn’t take any bravery at all. People should be like, “gender” is a spectrum – be/do whatever you want!
So back to JK Rowling, she appears to be equating biological “sex” with “gender”. And in doing so, she’s not making a point about the biological realities of people’s bodies (and yes including their sexual orientation/ attraction), but she’s invalidating the existence of an entire community of people in doing so. I believe this is wrong.
I cannot imagine what it is like for a young person growing up (and it’s hella confusing growing up anyway) to feel like you are in the wrong biological body. That must be harrowing. I don’t pretend to know the experience because I don’t. But a point that a lot of feminists make, and I will make it here, is that:
it should be okay to identify with the “feminine” gender and/or “feminine” traits and have a penis (WiP). It should be okay to identify with the “masculine” gender and/or “masculine” traits and have a vagina (WiV). Though (biological) sex is binary, gender should not be. Toxic masculinity and femininity, literally, serves no one.
If you are WiP, and you want to wear a dress, go for it! If you are WiV, and you want to wear dungarees (like me), go for it! I don’t want to tell people what they can or can’t do, but I do want to say how much it saddens me to see young people “mutilating”* themselves by changing their biological sex, when they might not have to, if we didn’t have these ridiculous constructs of “masculine/male/man”, “feminine/female/woman”.
I think this is what the queer movement is about, being sexually progressive because they are attracted to “people” and not social constructs (please do feel free to correct me if I am wrong). There are others who are only attracted to WiV or WiP and I think that’s okay too – this post isn’t an attempt to shame those people either. Love whoever you want!
* mutilating: I just want to explain why I have chosen to use this word: when we hurt our bodies, we mutilate ourselves. Changing our biological sex is a very extreme process. It requires putting a lot of chemicals into our bodies to “mimic” the biological functions of the other biological sex. It requires the, literal, castration of our most sacred sexual parts. Trans people know better than anyone how violent this act is. But I want to call it out as a violent act against ourselves, because I believe it is. I believe that social constructions are the problem – not individual bodies. We, as individuals, are not the disease that needs saving through reverting biology: gender is the disease and we should abolish this. I realise this is probably controversial and I don’t judge you if you want to change your biological sex – I just think you shouldn’t have to to feel accepted in our society.
So back to JK Rowling and her TERF-ness, which by the way, I found out means Trans-Exclusionary-Radical-Feminist. So as a person who is sometimes referred to as a “Radical feminist”, I feel it important to tackle this one too. There seems to be a discourse – and I have no idea where this one came from – that Trans-women are in some ways violent or likely to prey on (other) women, that they are somehow a danger to (other) women and should be kept out of women’s spaces. Have you met any trans-people? People who identify as “trans” are more likely to be “abused” than you, as a woman. And the stakes are already pretty high for us! Trans people are more likely to be subjugated by partners; they are more likely to be dominated by partners; they are more likely to abused by partners. They are more likely to be “unsafe” in male spaces, than they are in women’s spaces.
Shall I tell you who I want out of women’s spaces? Violent people & rapists. I don’t believe those people tend to be “trans” women.
I have spent time in queer spaces. I used to live in Manchester and I had some gay (both male and female) friends. We used to hang out in bars on Canal street – and we felt safe, as queers, and as people, there. They had unisex toilets in many of those bars. We’d do our makeup with our friends (male and female) and yes, it’s weird seeing any man pee with the door open! But, I never felt unsafe there. If a group of extremely “masculine” people were to infiltrate those spaces, I may have felt differently. I feel like every person who tries to exclude trans women from our spaces, should think about that! It’s not our biological “sex” that’s the problem, it’s extreme behaviour – and often that troubling (extreme) “masculine” behaviour is also directed at people who identify as queer, trans or gay. Often, more so! And I am specifically talking about extreme “masculine” behaviour and “rape culture” (I’m so sorry to write that because that shouldn’t even be a thing).
For my last point, I’d like to point you to the academic, Judith Butler. She wrote a series of essays on gender and my favourite is an essay about “gender as performativity”. In the essay she writes about how gender roles are “performed” in our society and we treat them as “natural”, when they are not. They are actually a learned set of rules and behaviours that are carried from birth that we naturalise into our own beings. I recommend you read some of her work, if you want to learn about queer theory.
I recommend all “radical” feminists, who stopped their academic education at Simone deBeauvoir and Betty Friedan, expand their literary horizons and read some of Butler’s work. And I’d make that same recommendation to JK Rowling, who must’ve missed that seminar in her gender studies class.
Related links:
- Judith Butler: Gender Trouble at Amazon
- Queer Theory summary in The Cut
- Judith Butler: PERFORMATIVITY, PRECARITY AND SEXUAL
POLITICS - Judith Butler: Performative Acts and Gender Constitution: An Essay in Phenomenology and Feminist Theory
we dance to all the wrong songs 