You鈥檝e heard of J K Rowling. If you haven鈥檛, I envy you. The famous and wealthy author of the Harry Potter series has been the subject of some controversy over the past several years as she has waged a campaign against the fight for trans rights, as well as trans teenagers access to puberty blockers.
Rowling says that she worries that the upsurge in trans activism poses some sort of threat to her own feminist philanthropy.
Leaving aside the fact that trans activism (though the terminology has obviously changed) has a history going back at least as far as the suffragette movement, trans- and gender-diverse activism does not pose a threat to feminism.
In fact, feminists should welcome the upsurge in trans and gender diverse activism as new allies.
To some, like Rowling, there appears to be a tension between feminism and the trans liberation movement. In the case of trans-exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), for example, this tension comes from a view that the nature of a person is determined by whatever gender a doctor records on a birth certificate.
TERFs, and even some more reasonable feminists, have concerns about some forms of inclusive language such as 鈥渘on-male鈥, or 鈥減eople who menstruate鈥. The purpose, of course, to include those people who menstruate or aren鈥檛 men, but aren鈥檛 women either.
The fight for inclusive language has long been a feminist issue. Books on all sorts of topics have been written about 鈥渉im鈥 鈥 the supposedly generic protagonist of history. I鈥檓 not talking about representation in creative writing; I鈥檓 talking about text books and research papers that have no need of such a specified protagonist. Feminists opposed this universal 鈥渉e鈥, and now we have constructions like 鈥(s)he鈥 or 鈥渉e/her鈥 as the supposedly generic protagonist of history.
But there are still people, like me, who that language doesn鈥檛 include. Maybe the protagonist should be 鈥渢hey鈥. People might say that that鈥檚 not grammatically correct, but they are wrong and missing the point.
There is a minute chance that they鈥檒l phrase their objection: 鈥淚 don鈥檛 care what someone tells me their pronouns are, I鈥檓 going to call it like I see it鈥.
These feminists鈥 worries, typically phrased as some variation of 鈥淭his sort of terminology will erase women and the biological history of women鈥檚 oppression鈥, is a valid concern.
For socialist feminists, the oppression of women is about more than biology. The traditional family structure, for example, places the onus of childcare, care of the elderly and domestic labour on women. Patriarchal capitalism insists that this is the 鈥渘atural order鈥, thereby allowing the state to shirk its social responsibilities.
The supposed 鈥渘atural鈥 order is kept in place by an intense and complex series of stereotypes about both women鈥檚 and men鈥檚 roles.
While outdated, the old stereotypes of women being the demure 鈥渉ome-maker鈥 still contribute to the notion that women are best placed in childcare or community work, or some caring profession. Today, of course, women can be company CEOs but they still have the main responsibility for domestic work in the home.
Men have to be 鈥渟trong鈥, ought to be main bread-winners, and be whatever 鈥渕asculine鈥 means right now. They don鈥檛 need to be particularly good at the caring.
Historically, the feminist movement has fought against these stereotypes and argued that men and women must have equal rights to be treated the same. Women should be able to be butch mechanics without being threatened with sexual harassment or demeaning treatment. Similarly, men should be able to be childcare workers.
The oppression of trans and gender diverse people stems from capitalism鈥檚 same, family-preserving impulse.
Trans and gender diverse people pose an explicit threat to the gendered stereotypes that are used to support the idea of the family as 鈥渘atural鈥.
If there鈥檚 no single definition of 鈥渨oman鈥, who cares for the kids and does the washing? If there鈥檚 no single definition of 鈥渕an鈥, who is the聽 bread-winner? If there are no 鈥渕en鈥 or 鈥渨omen鈥, how can we have a family?
What if a person isn鈥檛 confined by whatever gender a doctor assigns them at birth? What if I have no gender at all?
The TERF answer to that is the same stereotype the patriarchy handed to me as a kid.
Rowling claims to fear that rights for trans people will somehow interfere with feminism鈥檚 goal of liberation. But the biological essentialist position that she holds 鈥 that people鈥檚 nature is determined by the gender they are assigned at birth 鈥 supports the same patriarchal capitalist system that prevents not only women鈥檚 liberation, but human liberation.
Trans and gender liberation share a central goal with feminism: we want a world where it doesn鈥檛 matter what gender you are, or a world where you don鈥檛 have to have a gender at all. TERFs, despite their claims to be feminist, actively work against this goal.