The fightback against gender identity has gone global
From the UK to Mexico, politicians are taking a stand
Protecting women’s rights from policies rooted in gender ideology has become a bipartisan issue. This week, Conservative MP Miriam Cates and Labour MP Rosie Duffield issued a public commitment to work across political party lines, vowing to fight back against the onslaught of policies which prioritise trans inclusion to the detriment of women’s rights.
On the Left, Duffield has been vocal in defending the biological basis of sex and the right to single-sex services and spaces, a stance that has cost her dearly. The Canterbury MP, a survivor of male violence, compared the toxicity of a Labour Party to an abusive relationship in an article for UnHerd earlier this year. On the Right, Miriam Cates has faced no such opposition. Rather, when faced with hostility from Labour MPs, her party stood by her.
Like what you’re reading? Get the free UnHerd daily email
Already registered? Sign in
Bipartisanship in defence of women’s rights goes beyond the parliamentary benches. Standing for Women’s “Let Women Speak” rallies provide a platform for members of the public and politicians alike to share their objections to gender identity ideology and devise strategies on how to push back.
During Let Women Speak events in Australia and New Zealand last month, trans rights activists physically assaulted organiser Kellie-Jay Keen, forcing her to cut short the tour. Until then, the tour had succeeded in bringing together grassroots organisers such as Mana Wāhine Kōrero with Right-of-centre politicians like Moira Deeming MP. Women who fiercely advocate for abortion rights and those who oppose it found common ground over their opposition to gender identity dogma.
Elsewhere, a grassroots cross-party coalition of mainly Spanish-speaking feminists launched the “Feminist Women International” group to counter the Spanish government’s controversial “trans bill”, which allows anyone over the age of 16 to change their legally registered gender. The project aims to push back against such policies, which are also being imposed without public scrutiny in the Caribbean and Latin America.
The Latin American and Caribbean region certainly needs all the help it can get. Back in 2008, Ecuador became the first country to introduce the concept of “gender identity” in its constitution, followed by Bolivia in 2009. Argentina voted in favour of sex self-identification in 2012, as did Brazil in 2013.
None of these countries had informed, democratic debates about the material implications of these policies, including the effects on children’s and women’s rights. At the time, they were experiencing “the pink tide” of progressive governments which managed to push through sweeping legislations while relying on charismatic figureheads.
But some politicians are cottoning on. In Mexico, for example, conservative congresswoman America Rangel introduced a law proposal to prevent children who reject their sex from undergoing irreversible surgeries. Meanwhile, Mexican feminist author Laura Lecuona was allowed to present her book ‘When Trans is not Transgressive’ in the Mexican Congress. Both Lecuona and Rangel have publicly defended one another for standing up for women’s rights.
Politicians, grassroots campaigners and the public are now better informed about gender identity and what it means for women’s rights. In recent months, they have shown a willingness to reach across the aisle and ally with those to whom they are otherwise ideologically opposed. Against the juggernaut of gender identity politics, nothing else will do.
This is precisely the kind of positive pushback required.
We should refuse to give in to those who think it’s too late to reverse the transactivist trend. Institutions that’ve been captured can be restored to sanity, and if it takes as long as it took for those institutions to be twisted in the cultural wind, so be it.
Only then, can trans people begin to live their lives as others do, free from being weaponised in culture wars in which others are threatened, such as through the abandonment of women-only spaces.
Dylan Mulvaney is interesting. Personally, I have no issue with whatever she does. Yet, he acts like such a stereotypical, weak, flighty woman that I totally understand why some feminists would be offended. His portrayal of a women is something out of the 1950s. Watching him jump around doing silly stuff while promoting Nike must be truly offensive to female athletes.
I am 84 years old and have never met a woman or girl who acts as stupid as Dylan. But he’s one sick puppy, and I won’t pick on him. But I will express my disgust as all his enablers, and the corporations that support him. Anyone who doesn’t know that this whole gender identity thing has the full support of corporations because it serves their purposes, both economically and politically. When Goldman Sachs supports your agenda, it’s time to realize this isn’t any human rights battle.
Like most of the global warming nonsense that is green-washed, most corporations are merely trying to keep from looking frumpy and mean so they bend to the latest crap.
The fact that Nike chooses to advertise their sports bra using a person who doesn’t have breasts shows an incredibly cackhanded PR team. It’s beyond parody, it’s Pythonesque.
The purpose of a sports bra is to support the breasts during strenuous exercise. How does a person without breasts prancing about like a ten year old do that?
Someone pointed out that in the circle of people who work to promote things such as beer or bras, there is no one who has any contact with the people who would be against this sort of thing, and, if by chance there was, they would be the sole person in that company at that level who did, and would thus keep their mouth shut.
This is why the Bud Light thing was such a disaster. There was literally no one who either knew to push back on it, or was at such a level to push back.
And to the point above, none of these people who are transitioning have any idea what it is like to grow up as the gender/sex they think they should be. They are simply role playing from watching too much TV and movies. When you start to look at them from that angle, it is something impossible to not see.
You should have an issue with whatever he does. Indulging insanity is part of the insanity of our day.
He. He acts like a particularly silly stereotype of a 9 year old attention seeking girl
“I have no issue with whatever she does.”
* I have no issue with whatever he does.
Celebrity is a drug. Once you’ve tasted it, you’re hooked. So what to do if you don’t really have the talent to stay in the public eye?
Sam Smith has the answer.
Personally I have a theory that many outwardly public trans women are pyschopaths. Not all by any means but the backlash is against those that are.
Many of the public trans women that I’ve seen seem to be highly narcissistic and seemingly keen on power with no regards for morality. I would posit that this is precisely the behaviour predicted by psychopathy.
You may be right. However “highly narcissistic and seemingly keen on power with no regards for morality” is something we seem to keep observing in many fields, from academia to local and national politics, do we not? I doubt if everyone (professionally trained or not) would agree to classify them all as psychopaths. That in and of itself is arguably unfortunate, as failing to identify many of the self-proposed “leaders” as being a danger permits them to be a danger no less important for a more moral future than the trans activists if not marginalised, too.
I wouldn’t say psychopaths either but more zealots. For me there is a clear distinction between the Rainbow Religion and people who fall into any of the LGBTIQ+ (I hope that this is somehow still correct) categories. It is the immense power behind this small group and their bulling tactics that I just cannot stand. In essence it is not who they are that bothers me, but what they do and how they do it.
Peter D, one thing we can all do is to stop using that alphabet line-up that suggests to the general public that all the people represented by its letters are members of a “community” that supports trans ideology. The only letters that are appropriate are T and Q.
I just think that most of these people are being destructive for the sake of being destructive. I even said to a colleague that if they continue down this path, that he will be forced back into the closet. He just smiled and said yeah as if it was fun.
I agree with you that they are not all one community. This is why I differentiate between the zealots who I consider part of the rainbow religion and those who just want to live their lives.
Completely agree. It’s as inaccurate and insulting as BAME.
There are many LGB people who want nothing to do with the Ts or the Qs.
Nancy, do not forget about the +….
Jennifer Bilek is the go-to woman on this she has followed the money and money definitely talks and bullies!!!
I didn’t say that psychopaths are in any way dangerous – i don’t believe that most of them are. From what I understand psychopaths make up something like 1% of the population and most are most certainly not mass murderers. Indeed many top professionals like CEOs and surgeons score very highly for psychopathy.
What is potentially more interesting to me, is that that backlash or so-called transphobia of public trans figures may be peoples’ instinctive desire to punish psychopathic behaviour that is to do things that are inherently self-interested with no regards for morals like declaring yourself a women to go to a women’s prison.
Plenty psychopaths who are not killers are still extremely destructive. It is estimated that there are 30% in corporate management structures and they consider the workplace their playground. They are also out and about generally, even in charities. I’ve come across many of them and their motivations and make-up (e.g. no guilt) are not good – they can mimic behaviour and are good at things like moral posturing.
Gender dysphoria is a psychopathic condition. It requires help, not celebration. We don’t celebrate anorexia, do we? I can’t imagine telling anorexic patients that they are indeed over weight, because they think so, and need to diet.
I tend to avoid getting dragged into the trans issue, mostly because of the complexity and distance from problems I can actually see in the world. But I’m almost certain that gender dysphoria is not psychopathic. My own research and self diagnosis for autism however has led me to believe that there’s a connection between the high exposure to testosterone in the womb being a possible cause for autism and the high rate of gender dysphoria or transgenderism in autistic girls. This is all intuitive and not properly clinical however.
It beggars the imagination that some of these countries are following policies that are so clearly American in origin given how radically different their cultures are. It highlights the ridiculous amount of power and authority that the American aristocratic class is able to wield through their use of international finance, trade, and multinational corporations. As an American, I’d advise any country to think twice about allowing American companies to invest there. There’s a price to pay for economic benefits. When American corporations invest their money overseas to exploit cheap labor, they also export the toxic progressive politics of the American left.
Cultural hegemony is a hell of a drug.
It isn’t the countries, it’s the politicians. And the class that supports them. The average person knows better but does not have the courage to speak.
Both men and women need safe single-sex spaces. First we lost sight of why they are important, then we did away with them, and now we wonder what is missing.
Feminists were quite happy to get rid of men’s spaces.
A club in London is not a “safe space” it’s a club. A lavatory or a changing room or a rape crisis centre are safe spaces.
Women reporters are allowed in men’s locker rooms where they are changing and showering. Shouldn’t that be a safe space for men?
And why shouldn’t any group – men, women, Democrats, short people – be permitted to have a private space where they exclude others?
Or do you just need to control others despite their ‘right of free assembly’?
Thank you, Terry. Unlike Paul T., I see nothing at all in Galvatron Stevens’s comment about “safe spaces.” Galvatron refers to the larger notion of gendered spaces that allowed men or women to enjoy common pastimes or interests. At one time, for example, baseball games (or even watching games on television) and fishing trips were common activities that brought mainly men or men and boys together (although some women and girls, too, enjoyed those activities). And women had their own equivalents such as canasta games, book clubs and shopping expeditions (usually daytime activities that took place while most men were in their offices). In the name of “equality” (understood as sameness), however, feminists de-legitimated gender, per se, as a cultural system and by doing so all gendered activities. Because gender, no matter how minimal, is a universal feature of culture, the loss of gender symbolism can have profound consequences. This should by now be self-evident to everyone from the many social problems that indicate the increasingly dangerous situation in which boys and young men cannot establish healthy identities specifically as boys and men (about which I’ve written elsewhere).
I won’t thank you, Hillary Easton, because you’ve failed to recognize that feminists have indeed invaded men’s spaces–not toilets or changing rooms, to be sure, but other men’s spaces and even the legitimacy of any space for men. It’s one thing, for instance, to argue for the integration of women into the paid workforce. It’s another thing to argue, as Betty Friedan did, that this change would come at no cost to men (or, for that matter, to women in different ways). We’re still fighting over how to change the rules that govern sexually integrated business offices–rules that respect the personal needs of women (or men) but not by abandoning due process, fostering vigilantism or, worst of all de-legitimating heterosexuality itself (let alone denying, as transgender advocates do, the very existence of either women or men).
They are usually there with the consent of the people in the changing rooms. Trans identifying females are not a threat to men and men are not generally threatened by women. I do not want women in men’s changing rooms but your blatant men’s rights commentary gives you away; the risks for men and women are very very different.
There was an important reason for that as regards certain clubs as they were functioning as places where the old boys could make management and political decisions while excluding women.
However, feminists never tried to invade men’s toilets or changing rooms,
Any discussion of trans issues must begin by stating that no one should be discriminated against because of the way they choose to present themselves to the world if they aren’t causing harm to others and the vast majority of the trans community are not causing anyone harm. Accommodating Trans people up to the point where their rights conflict with women’s right is only being polite. However, before we talk about youth medicine, women only spaces, education, or athletics we must debunk gender ideology. Gender ideology is a political ideology based on a philosophy put forth by Foucault and Butler that has no basis in science. It is a mistaken view of the reality of sex and gender. Gender is not some soul-like entity that resides in our brain independent of physiology nor is it a social construct. The social constructs are gender stereotypes, the way we think men and women should behave. This is why many trans women behave like the stereotypes that feminism has been trying to expunge for decades; Dylan Mulvaney is a good example of this. There is only the sex binary.
Although Gender Dysphoria is characterized by a person who feels they are the wrong gender for their body, it is in fact impossible for a natal male or female to know how it feels to be the other sex. Our brain is only one part of a whole. What it feels like to be a man, or a woman is dependent on the entirety of our physical selves, our reproductive system, the hormones our body produces and the structure of our brain. There has never been a man born who knows what it feels like to be a woman or vice versa. In the 60’s psychologists decided that transition was the best way to relieve the distress of gender dysphoria and because it was such a small cohort at the time no one challenged them just as no one on the left has challenged trans activists today.
So, what is a trans person? Unfortunately, because we have swallowed whole the assumptions of gender ideology and have demonized dissent, we have stopped trying to understand the scientific basis for gender dysphoria and simply accepted that a trans woman is a woman and that the only treatment is transition. An argument can be made that true transsexuals are nothing more than conflicted homosexuals or lesbians who would prefer to pretend to be what they think of as the opposite sex rather than face their sexuality. It is also possible that they could be helped by intensive therapy and avoid lifelong medicalization. Maybe not, but, again unfortunately, merely suggesting these things or that further study is warranted will get you cancelled. Of course, if an adult wants to transition, they should be allowed to, but we must challenge the notion that a trans woman is a woman.
Well thought out, well articulated comments. We just assume these people think they are the opposite sex, but they can’t possibly understand how the opposite sex feels.
I generally support a libertarian position – let people do what they like, as long as they don’t impose on the rights and lives of others. Children are the exception of course. We should never expose them to life altering medical treatment.
Agreed. Just like we shouldn’t agree with a young anorexic girl who believes she is fat.
About time too
Ultimately the push back needs to be against the whole neo-Marxist Postmodernist claptrap inspired “Social Justice” movement, which is a wolf in sheep’s clothing destroying free speech and harming everyone including those it aims to protect. Whilst I disagree with Diane Abbott’s views on racism (and a whole lot more), if she can’t express her views without being sanctioned what hope is there for any of us on any of the taboo subjects?
For me the Trans issue was always the most obviously ridiculous bit of poisonous claptrap and therefore a really good place to start the fight back in the name of common sense and free speech.
This will continue. The trans lot will just bide their time. There is way too much money in trans for this to go away. Plus the “anti-trans feminists + anti-woke” coalition is very fragile given how they disagree on practically everything else.
I read a succinct summary, deft in its deep insight from a Father Most. He recounted the story of the west from the Protestant Reformation, through the oddly named “Enlightenment” (Marx’s materialism was enlightened”?) to Today’s Postmodern incoherence.
He wrote. “First they lost Christ. Then they lost God. Then they lost their minds.”
Psychotics. They suffer from a persistent radical break from reality. Liposuction is not a cure for anorexia nervosa. Mass psychosis is not a solution or treatment for individual psychotics.
Making Canada look just like 18th century France will not help your crazy uncle who insists he is actually Napoleon.
It is our culture that is literally out of its mind.
Join the discussion
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.Subscribe