Part 6: The rise of the anti-“gender identity” movement
Trans: when reality meets ideology
The rise of “gender identity” created a rift amongst feminists who disagreed with the idea that males could identify and be treated as women, on the basis of their subjective “gender identity”.
The feminist movement split into two: those who wanted to continue with their project to dismantle the “cis”, white, hetero, male “patriarchy” and those who saw their new fight as being with the the trans, white, male, hetero, “patriarchy” as part of the anti-“gender identity” movement. Both groups of feminists accuse the other group of working on the behalf of the “patriarchy”.
The feminists in the anti-“gender identity” did not consider that it was feminist ideology and the “devouring mothers” of matriarchal institutions that had been so aggressively pushing for the deconstruction of the meaning of “sex”.
Nor did they consider how the feminist “social justice” movement prepared the ground in which the “trans” social justice movement could flourish, with its own cancellations, violent protests, and ideology of oppressed versus oppressor.
Instead, feminists in the anti-“gender identity” movement movement remained committed to an ideology that saw the “trans” “social justice” movement as being caused by a patriarchy. This was even despite the fact that in the UK, women were statistically more likely to support greater rights for “trans women” than men.1
It is likely that there is a generational reason at play behind an apparent ideological blindness. The feminist within the anti-“gender identity” in the UK are largely from the Boomer-generation, who appear to be largely unaware of the nature of the feminist movement around 2010. The symbolism they reach for instead is from the Suffragette movement of the early 20th Century.
There are also no doubt many feminists of the anti-“gender identity” movement who believe the aggressive, censorious nature of the “trans activist” movement is the “patriarchy”, simply as they have not previously had a disagreement before with “social justice” orthodoxy: where the cancellation of James Damore was justice, the cancellation of feminists at protesting against the “gender identity” movement, on the other hand, is a violation of due process.
They overlook the violent feminist protests against Dr Warren Farrell and the “anti-fascists” firebombing of Milo Yiannopoulos talks, so cannot see that these are the same as the violent protests that are taking place against feminists who have come to disagree with “gender identity” ideology today, as they themselves have been caught out on the wrong side of “social justice” ideology.
The feminists in the anti-“gender identity” movement became labelled as “cis” oppressors: the “TERFs” (“Trans-exclusionary radical feminists”). They are smeared as “transphobic”, a word that took its place amongst other accusations of “homophobic”, “sexist”, “misogynist”, “racist” that could be used to silence people, through social ostracism. There are the same conspiracy theories that link “TERFs” to the “alt-right”, despite the fact that anti-“gender identity” feminists largely come from the Left and far-Left.
It didn't matter if you were J. K. Rowling, the beloved children’s author of now two generations,2 if you did raise questions, even in a mild and thoughtful way, then you were smeared a “transphobe” and part of the oppressor group,3 and the just target for cancellation, smears and threats of violence.
The new James Damore became Maya Forstater, who lost her job for disagreeing with the idea that transgender women could actually change their biological sex.4
Part seven of this series considers "ROGD" boys.
“Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2022?” YouGov Smith, M. 20 July 2022.
“Harry Potter and the Author Who Failed Us” Vox Romano, A. 11 June 2020.
“Maya Forstater was discriminated against over gender-critical beliefs, tribunal rules” Siddique, H. The Guardian 6 July 2022.