Last Friday the Morning Star published an article which you can read here regarding the new bathroom laws in America and the effect this was having on Trans people. Unfortunately, this article was regressive, gender essentialist, reminiscent of the line taken by the US Republican Party and Transphobic. On Sunday, I sent in the response which I have attached below. This was a toned down version with the intention of being published.

This was ignored, and I am led to believe was one of many responses as come Wednesday this week the Morning Star had disregarded this criticism and had instead published an open statement of solidarity with a worrying number of signatories which can be viewed here.

It has also been suggested that the original article was consistent with the editorial line, a worrying idea which must be looked into. It is equally disturbing that this would come from what is supposed to be a progressive voice in the media and is instead putting forward views to the right of Donald Trump in this respect (he has said that people can come to Trump Tower and use whichever bathroom they feel comfortable with, something Caitlyn Jenner has put to the test.)

What is clear is that the Morning Star has now attracted a backlash that has led to some calling for a boycott. The Morning Star needs to take action to address these concerns, not continue to bury their head in the sand – that approach never ends well.

A final point regarding my below response – unlike the Morning Star, I will happily correct any errors I have made and update this article if need be. Please do criticise and ask questions over what I have written – there is, after all, plenty more to be said.

Critical response to “Why I Won’t Accept The Politics Of Gender Identity” by Jennifer Duncan – Morning Star Online, 20/5/16

I am confused by the criticism of legal protections for Transgender people In America – while they are of course nowhere near sufficient, the critique is instead that “the politics of transgenderism is harmful to women and girls and rooted in individualism rather than collective action”

The author seems to be taking a sort of gender essentialist approach here, by which I mean they believe that Gender identity is rooted in biological sex (a wooly concept in itself which I will address later on) when they argue that “When someone has a gender identity, that means they believe their sex to be the opposite of what their physical anatomy is, or that they are neither sex”. Gender identity isn’t something rooted in being Transgender – most people have one.

In doing this, and later when they repeatedly describe things in terms of “the opposite sex” they are also reinforcing the concept of a gender binary – they are reinforcing one of the pillars of oppression under capitalist society.

If the author refers to biological sex, that isn’t a binary either. There are many factors, including but not limited to, genitalia, chromosomes, hormones, and secondary sex characteristics. The Gender binary groups specific variations of each of these into 2 categories, which we call male and female, but many people don’t meet these conditions.

It’s worth bearing in mind that most people don’t know their own chromosomes, and don’t know many of these factors in regards to other people. In capitalist society, gender then precedes sex – it is gender that is socially constructed and biological sex assumed after.

They frequently mention that Gender identity is poorly defined, but the definitions given by the author are woefully inadequate and as a result misleading, so here are some alternatives:

The impression is given that the author is a Cisgender Woman – that is to say they were assigned female at birth and identify with that assigned gender (if this is inaccurate, then I apologise). It seems that they have engaged in cisplaining thus far – they are a cis person explaining Trans perspectives, and given misleading information given so far I would very much like to hear Trans people’s thoughts on this article, especially given what is then said regarding transitioning.

I am very concerned at the claim made that transitioning is one of two responses to patriarchal gender roles, “one way is collectively working to change society so that these roles will be abolished, and the other way is changing the self in order to change the self in order to better survive the system that is in place”. This is a baseless assertion over why Trans people would decide to transition – firstly it contradicts the existence of Trans women, who if this were true would be desiring to have an inferior role in society, and secondly it ignores the numerous, complex and very personal reasons behind someone’s decision on whether to transition – again, input from Trans people on this article would be welcome.

The author then comes to their main issue – the idea of Trans women in women’s public toilets, and their perception of this as a threat. They also repeatedly misgender said trans women when they say “This is a problem for women and girls because our female biology makes us vulnerable to men… Seeing a man in a private, female only space such as a locker room is uncomfortable for women, regardless of how strongly we feel about his gender identity”.

This line of thought is reminiscent of claims by the US Republican Party in their hysterics of peeping toms in the women’s bathroom, and is also worryingly similar to the language used by TERF’s – Trans exclusionary radical feminists who are known for denying Trans women as women.

People rarely are aware if someone has “female biology”, only making that assumption if they are perceived to fit the expected female gender roles – I would argue that it is gender that this oppression is based on in wider society more often than “biological sex”.

We do at least agree on one thing – collective action is needed to dismantle the gender system.