 “But they cannot unless they get a penis attached” A recent TikTok recording of a compassionate confrontation on sex and gender between a female teacher and a thirteen-year girl in a class on “life education” at Rye College in East Sussex on Friday June 13 has certainly caught attention of mainstream media in the UK. Not the least because the exchange seems to shows a young girl arguing eloquently with an ill-tempered and rather irate teacher who seems to be fully into identity politics. But judge for yourselves, when reading part of the confrontation. Irate teacher: “How dare you, you’ve just really upset someone. Saying things like you should be in an asylum. Girl or girls replaying: I didn’t say that … if they genuinely identify as a cat* or something, then they are genuinely unwell. Yeah, they are crazy. Teacher: You’ questioning their identity. Girl: It wasn’t [the] question. I was just saying about their gender. If I said anything about them. Teacher: Where did you get this idea that there is only two genders? Girl: I just said my opinion. If I respect their opinion can’t they respect mine? Teacher: It’s just an opinion. Girl: This is not an opinion [noise with girl and teacher speaking at the same time] Girl: There’s only a boy and a girl, there’s no other private part. Teacher: Gender is nor linked with that. It is not linked to the parts that you were born with. Gender is how you identify. Which is what I said right from the beginning. Girl: I don’t agree with that so why should I have to listen to that? Teacher: Biological Sex … There’s actually three biological sexes. You can be borne with male and female body parts or hormones. Did you know that? There’s three in terms of biological sex. In terms of gender there are lots of genders. There’s transgender, there’s agender. People who don’t believe they have gender at all. Girl: Yeah, but you cannot have that. Girl: It’s not a law: it’s our opinion. We just don’t agree with it. If you have a vagina, you’re a girl. If you have a penis, you are a boy. Teacher: Cisgender is not necessarily the way to be. You are talking about … that Cisgender is the norm, that you identify with the gender, that is the sexual organ that you are born with. That’s basically what you are saying. Girl: almost inaudible, yeah … Teacher: Which is really despicable. Girl: How? If I called my mum right now, she’d say … Teacher: So that’s very sad as well. Girl: How is it loads of people agree with that then. There’s only a small minority of people who actually think that… Teacher: And why do you think we have so many problems in the world with homophobia? Girl: Yeah but that’s not homophobia, that’s transgender. I’m fine with lesbians and gay people. I’ve got nothing against them. Teacher: But there’s a link between it. [Inaudible] Girl: But they can’t unless they get a penis attached Teacher: You’re confusing sex and gender. Girl: No, I’am not, though. Because, if you have a vagina you’re a girl… [Inaudible] Teacher: Gender is about your identity. How you identify. It’s not an opinion. Girl loud arguing: Yes, it is! [confused talking] Teacher irate again: If you don’t like it, you need to go to a different school… I’m reporting you to [name left out]. You need to have a proper educational conversation. About equality, diversity and inclusion, because I’m not having that expressed in lesson when I’m teaching you about you can be who you want to be, how you identify is up to somebody [Eager interruptions]. Girl: They just don’t say it because all this happens. Teacher: Maybe because they are polite. They’ are sensitive. Girl [according to the Daily Mail interpretation, the girl then defends herself by saying she was respectful, but admits she felt compelled to ask her classmate]: I haven’t said anything at all, but it is because they turn around and say things. So, I said how can you identify as a cat when you are a girl? Teacher talks about the writing of a statement … and the girls as well? Girl: We will. Yeah, we will. A question of penis in politics too The confusing confrontation in the class at Rye College seems to be mirrored in grown up politics. Asked by the Times in March 2022 to define a woman, Keir Starmer, Leader of the opposition in Parliament, said: “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, and that is not just my view — that is actually the law. It has been the law through the combined effects of the 2004 Act and the 2010 [Equality] Act. So that’s my view. It also happens to be the law in the United Kingdom.” The 2004 Act referred to is the Gender Recognition Act and the 2010 Act is The Equality Act. The author J. K. Rowling of Potter fame, replied to Starmer in a Tweet arguing: “I don’t think our politicians have the slightest idea how much anger is building among women from all walks of life at the attempts to threaten and intimidate them out of speaking publicly about their own rights, their own bodies and their own lives.” Some have: Rosie Duffield, a labour MP, argues that Keir Starmer’s view has made women frightened and furious about losing their rights. For quite some time women have protested against a pervasive trend toward accepting that anyone can "identify themselves as the gender [they] want." That your gender can be determined by what you feel in your own head and not by what you have between your legs. Increasingly, politicians have given in to the demand that gender be defined by how one feels. Once Labour's former leader Corbyn even argued: "The party's position is that where you have identified yourself as a woman, you are treated as a woman." This also applies to Labour's National Executive Committee, which stated in May 2018: "Labour has a proud record of fighting for equality for women from all backgrounds, including BAME women, LGBT+ women, disabled women and working-class women. ... The Labour Party's All Women Shortlists are open to all women, including self-identifying trans women. Similarly, female officers and minimum quotas for women in the Labour Party are open to all women, including self-identifying trans women. (NEC). A statement that was followed by sharp protests. More than 300 women left the party in protest. In a letter to "The Times," some of them explain why: "We are appalled by the Labour Party's support for sex as a self-identified hallmark of all female candidate lists. We are now faced with a situation where any man can just claim to be a woman and be included in all women's shortlists. Sex is not a self-defined character trait and it is disingenuous of Labour to pretend it is. Self-identity – 'I am what I say I am' – oozes male authority and male supremacy. Not that it seems to have caused the party's leadership to hold back. In response to a question about a recently proposed, but controversial Gender Bill in Scotland, Keir Starmer seems to have realized that his view that trans women are women, may have angered the majority of women, and diminished Labour’s chances of winning the next election. Now he is saying “The lesson from Scotland is that if you can’t take the public with you on a journey of reform, then you’re probably not on the right journey.” He also promised there would be “no rolling back” of women’s rights if he was elected prime minister and stressed that “99.9 per cent of women… haven’t got a penis.” Not quite hundred percent, so perhaps he will still not be sure to take women with him on his journey. The leader of the Liberal Party, Ed Davey, also waded right into it, when taking questions in a talk radio program at LBC. Being asked by a listener what woman is he said: "The truth is, Mary, the vast majority of people whose biological sex is a woman when they were birthed - they feel they're women.” And if not? No wonder he was then asked if women can have a penis. Ed Davey’s answer: “Quite clearly.” Like in the class confrontation leaked recordings help to keep the subject alive in the media. In a leaked recording from a meeting of the Conservative 1922 Committee, prime minister Rishi Sunak is overheard saying “Sir Ed has been 'very busy... trying to convince everybody that women clearly had penises.” (PinkNews). In an interview with Rishi Sunak at Conservative Home in 2023, he is asked whether it is true that 100 per cent of women do not have a penis, Rishi Sunak says: “Yes, of course.” There you have it. Leading politicians arguing on level that certainly does not rise above the level thirteen-year girls. Somewhat more sincerely Rishi Sunak later argues “when it comes to these issues of protecting women’s rights, women’s spaces, I think the issue of biological sex is fundamentally important when we think about those questions.” So important that he intends a reform of the legal definitions of sex in order to protect women. Surely hoping that this will take women with him on his political journey up to the next general election. Sex and gender – what are we talking about An article from Yale School of Medicine refers to scientific attempts to disentangle these terms, leading a recommendation to use these definitions (medicine.yale.edu): SEX “In the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification, generally as male or female, according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement [generally XX for female and XY for male].” We may call this the biological definition. The article also mentions that in studies of nonhuman animals only the term sex should be used. GENDER “In the study of human subjects, the term gender should be used to refer to a person's self-representation as male or female, or how that person is responded to by social institutions on the basis of the individual's gender presentation.” These definitions see sex as strictly binary, while gender of cause covers a whole spectrum of possible variations. More on SEX An article in MedicalNewsToday also tries to untangle sex and gender. In addition to the binary sex definition: male and female, they add intersex, meaning people who have sex organs or chromosomes that does fit the male or female category. This has led to the assertation that biological sex is bimodal with two humps. So to speak a male hump and a female hump, with all sort sorts of less frequent variations in sex distributed around the humps. This would presumably mean that one could talk of a male being more or less male and a female as being more or less female., and thus indirectly give a kind of (scientific?) support to identity politics. The bimodal assertation put lie to the male /female category, but a bimodal definition has mostly been vehemently rejected by science. Male/Female are categories and categories cannot be bimodal. Disentanglement in politics? When Keir Starmer argued: “A woman is a female adult, and in addition to that trans women are women, … that is actually the law,” he was referring to the Equality Act from 2010. According to the act “sex is a reference to a man or to a woman.” Right, this would seem to refer to the biological definition of sex, meaning that Starmer would be mistaken in his belief that transwomen are women according to the law. Now this has led to questions about what is actually meant by the term sex in the Equality Act: Biological sex? or Sex as modified by after receiving a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC)? What this means is that it is unclear if sex is to be defined binary by biology or legally, where gender assignment would be important. This apparent entanglement of sex and gender definitions has led to confusion and criticism, not the least in relation to single sex areas like male or female toilets, in sports where the main problem has been transwoman participating in women’s sports, (the other way round would apparently have been less of a problem), and in allowing transwomen convicted of sexual offences to be imprisoned in a women’s prisons. A challenge to this praxis has at least in one case been rejected by the UK’s High Court, with Lord Justice Holroyde arguing: “it is not possible to argue that the defendant should have excluded from women’s prisons all transgender women. To do so would be to ignore, impermissibly, the rights of transgender women to live in their chosen gender.” Thus, the High Court also seems to be caught in the sex and gender entanglement Reacting to the confusion and the angry critics, prime minister Rishi Sunak has said that he will change the law to protect single-sex spaces for women, arguing that biological sex is “fundamentally important” (The Telegraph). To disentangle the confusing entanglement of sex and gender the Minister for Women and Equalities Kim Badenoch, has asked the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) for advice on clarifying the definition of sex. After reflection on the definition and meaning of sex by the EHRC, they have to come to the preliminary view “that if ‘sex’ is defined as biological sex for the purposes of EqA, this would bring greater legal clarity in eight areas.” (Letter from EHRC, April 3, 2023). Among these areas are: Pregnancy and maternity “As things stand, protections in the EqA [Equality Act] for pregnant women and new mothers fail to cover trans men who are pregnant and whose legal sex is male. Defining ‘sex’ as biological sex would resolve this issue.” (EHRC). Positive action “Currently, trans women with a GRC could benefit from ‘women-only’ shortlists and other measures aimed at increasing female participation. Trans men with a GRC could not. A biological definition of sex would correct this perceived anomaly.” Sports “At present, to exclude trans women with a GRC from women’s sports, the organiser must show that it was necessary to do so in the interests of fairness or safety. A biological definition of sex would mean that organisers could exclude trans women from women’s sport without this additional burden.” Single sex and separate sex services “Service providers are sometimes permitted to offer services to the sexes separately or to one sex only. For instance, a hospital might run several women -only wards. At present, the starting point is that a trans woman with a GRC can access a ‘women-only’ service. The service provider would have to conduct a careful balancing exercise to justify excluding all trans women. A biological definition of sex would make it simpler to make a women’s-only ward a space for biological women.” It is interesting that the EHRC also touch upon the issue of data collection: “When data are broken down by legal not biological sex, the result may seriously distort or impoverish our understanding of social and medical phenomena.” In some sort of conclusion, the EHRC writes: “On balance, we believe that redefining ‘sex’ in EqA to mean biological sex would create rationalisations, simplifications, clarity and/or reductions in risk for maternity services, providers and users of other services, gay and lesbian associations, sports organisers and employers. It therefore merits further consideration.” Not totally convincing one might say. “On balance” they “believe” that the question “merits” further consideration. Now it is up to the present Conservative government to act on the prime minister’s promise. For now, the confusing entanglement of biological sex and legal sex based on the idea of gender assignment remains a problem that not is not only reflected in confrontations like the one in Rye College, in teaching on sex and gender in general, but even more importantly in the question of human rights of woman in society. Gender rights run amok? In the Canadian Government’s efforts to promote the human rights it writes: “Canada stands up for the protection and promotion of the human rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, 2-spirit and intersex (LGBTQ2I) people globally. The human rights of all persons are universal and indivisible. Everyone should enjoy the same fundamental human rights, regardless of their sexual orientation and their gender identity and expression.” (Emphasis added). But what may that mean: According to WHO “Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time” (WHO). But it would seem that this definition doesn’t cover the whole meaning of gender as used in identity politics today. On the one hand we may have the socially constructed characteristics assigned by a community of people, or a more formally by a society. On the other hand, we have the oh so popular “I am what I feel I am” gender. Recognizing that these two perceptions, the socially recognized and the individual felt, may be interconnected in as much as the socially assigned characteristics today seemingly allows and even help amplify the idea that “You are what you feel you are.” Wonder if this cannot help us understand what happens in societies today, especially Western societies. With an apparent ever-expanding lists of strange letter combinations, like for instance LGBTTQQIP2SAA+ and perhaps the superficial acceptance of people identifying as cats, cows or whatever …? Social construction trying to beat reality Is it really possible in a community (understood as a Gemeinschaft) to have unlimited “I am what I feel” identities independent of the existing social norms in the community. Or will living in a community necessarily will mean that there are limits to what the community will “tolerate” of “I am what feel or say” identities? Today it seems a slight minority of people with “I am what I feel” identities demand that the rest of the community must accept, embrace, support and further the individual whims of this minority, “regardless of their sexual orientation and their gender identity and expression.”This would mean that an individual or group defined identity, trumps whatever community norms and identities that have evolved or been constructed over time. This contributed to the fluffy slogans connected to IDE or DEI, which stands for Inclusion, Diversity and Equality/Equity. Not realising that IDE in reality may have a shadowy side. In which inclusion may evolve to cover a reality of exclusion, where everyone who does not have the right attitude is excluded. This happened recently to the British anti-trans activist Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull (aka Posie Parker) at a rally in Wellington, New Zealand. She had to abort the rally, drowned out and threatened by “protesters galvanised by the LGBTQIA+ community.” (NZHerald). The protest found support by the Mayor of Wellington, Tory Whanau. She said she would support a counter-protest against her [Posie Parker]: “Wellington is known as a diverse community that celebrates its rainbow and trans whānau,” (NZHerald). Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull certainly isn’t the only one that entanglement activists have tried to exclude by attempting to shout them down and silence them. Diversity which today may seem an uncontroversial slogan finding its way into institutions, companies and politics, but when it includes attempts to create diversity by decree, quotas etc, it risks endangering equality and equity, and of cause criticism. Related to this, there is the shadowy consequences of striving for an equality, that may hide a self-contradictory bias. There is even an evident danger that biological sex, and lesbian women and gay men will disappear under in colourful rainbow of more superficial feelings and in vogue “I am what I feel” identities. Perhaps this is exactly what the thirteen old meant when she said “ it is not homophobia, that’s transgender. I’m fine with lesbians and gay people. I’ve got nothing against them.” It about all the rest. It may all have gone too far, the bizarre social constructs stemming from a minority of eager minds bringing forth views that collide head on with biological realities. Social constructions are not reality although it seems to have become popular and in vogue to believe that social constructions beat reality on its own turf. When schoolgirls and politicians have started to argue whether women can a penis or not, whether men can birther (to use unusual expression) babies or not. Whether mothers become birthing and breastfeeding persons, instead of mothers. No wonder that this may prove unacceptable to a society that considers itself a community of biological men and women. Take the uproar after the transgender influencer/celebrity Dylan Mulvaney promoted Bud’s Light beer in a short movie clip on Instagram. Or the backlash after newly self-identified transwoman wins a women’s cycling race. Teaching according to beliefs or --- For some time there has been a serious debate in the UK on what children are taught about sex and gender. According to the Telegraph there has been a concern that teaching materials for schools for instance based upon UNESCO advice as published in “International technical guidance on sexuality education – An evidence informed approach.” Here just an example from the publication under the heading “The social construction of gender and gender norms.” Where learning objectives for 5-8 years olds are to include “define gender and biological sex and describe how they are different (knowledge)” and “reflect on how they feel about their biological sex and gender (skill).” Examples like these have been questioned as being inappropriate for young children and led to demands for a review of sex education in the England. A recent report “Asleep at the wheel” from the “Policy Exchange” think tank attempts to show “why … urgent attention needs to be paid to the ways children are being impacted by gender identity beliefs” in English schools. The report finds that “at least 25 per cent of schools teach the idea that some people or children ‘may be born in the wrong body.’” While “at least 30 per cent of schools teach pupils that a person who self-identifies as a man or a woman should be treated as a man or woman in all circumstances, even if this does not match their biological sex.” The reports find strange recommendations, including this strange example: “Biological male/female these terms over-simplify a complex subject of what makes up someone’s sex. ‘Assigned male/female at birth’ (AMAB/AFAB) is preferred.” One wonders what is meant by the term assignment. Might this not be interpreted as meaning according to whim of an assigner. Prime minister Rishi Sunak has listened to the criticism. Perhaps in this he also wants to take parents with him in preparation for the next election. According to the Telegraph he has pledged a review of sex education in English schools in order to protect children from inappropriate sexual content and extreme views on gender. Arguing: “First and foremost as a parent... it's really important that what our kids are exposed to, not just at school but online, is sensitive and age appropriate,” adding "Our children are precious, they deserve to be protected." His concern is shared by the Chief inspector of Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education), Amanda Spielman. She has warned that children are being taught lessons on sex, that have “no basis in any reputable scientific biological explanation” and argued that any guidance for schools would have contain “a much greater definition about what is properly taught and at which age.” Realising that the entanglement of sex and gender have gone too far some kind of principled disentanglement at the very least anchored in science must take place, not the least in sex education or “life education” classes in schools. The confrontation at Rye College certainly seems to underline the need for some kind of guidance. Although this may prove to be a hopeless undertaking with children being subject to all kinds of strange and entertaining fads on TikTok and similar. But least it possible to end with a sign of hope. When a thirteen-year girl at Rye College calls out that the emperor’s new clothes are not there at all: “If you have a vagina, you’re a girl. If you have a penis, you are a boy.” This is how one girl disentangled the web of identity politics. * Although it seems dubious, identifying as cat, cow or some other flurry thing may be some kind of fad. “The first decade of the 21st century witnessed a huge diversification in terms of assumed sexual and gender preferences and identities – especially once otherkin groups migrated to the blog-hosting site, Tumbr.” (https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/features/why-be-human-when-you-can-be-otherkin) See also earlier essay on related questions: Closing our minds and erasing our past 12/11/17 https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/closing-our-minds-and-erasing-our-past Gender madness in the US Congress and elsewhere 01/15/21 https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/gender-madness-in-the-us-congress-and-elsewhere Limits of tolerance in a society 11/04/21 https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/limits-of-tolerance-in-a-society Is Harvard University building a Potemkin facade of diversity and inclusion? 07/09/21 https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/is-harvard-university-building-a-potemkin-facade-of-diversity-and-inclusion The internal decay of the West, part one 8/19/21 https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/archives/08-2021 Freedom of expression becoming thought crime? 12/22/2021 https://wahrnehmungen.weebly.com/blog/freedom-of-expression-becoming-thought-crime |
