April 19, 2023 - 3:20pm
Only a brave or foolish man would try and instruct women on how they should organise themselves. William Hague’s foray into the transgender debate appears to put him into the latter category. The former Tory leader has suggested that some members of the Women’s Institute should “get over” their opposition to transgender people joining the organisation. Hague explained, “there are transgender people; they have changed their gender. This is part of our society now and I think large national organisations have to get over that and get used to that”.
Yes, there are transgender people — I am one of them — but I am really not sure what Hague means when he claims that we have changed our gender. Was he referring to our hairstyles or perhaps our sartorial approach to life? Maybe he thinks that it is enough to change a name and demand other people use different pronouns when referring to us? He didn’t elaborate. But one thing is clear: we cannot change our sex. Like other mammals, human beings are sexually dimorphic. Our biological development diverged before we were born, and the sex that was observed at birth cannot be changed. Hague seemed to understand that when he discussed sport:
Going too fast, indeed. Sex matters in sport. But sex also matters in how we organise within society. Most groups are mixed sex — men and women contribute alongside each other, and however anyone classifies transgender people we are human and we should fit in somewhere.
However, organisations can and do choose to organise on a single sex basis. The WI is one of them. The National Federation of Women’s Institutes explains that membership is “for any woman who wants to join her local WI group and regularly attend meetings” [my emphasis]. If women are defined by their biological sex in sport, why not the WI? The Institute makes clear that it is “a trusted space for women of all generations to come together to share experiences and learn from each other.”
If those trusted spaces mean anything, then the boundaries must be clear. Unfortunately the present admissions policy is reported to say that anyone “who is living as a woman is welcome”, something that is hardly easy to define. A campaign has been launched to pause the admission of transgender women into local branches and with the intention of a vote being held. Quite right. This is yet another policy shift that has been made without proper understanding of the issues involved.
Hague, and the male sex generally, need to leave this matter to the women of the WI. If they wish to become a mixed-sex organisation it is for women to decide; not me and not Hague. If the WI decides to remain true to its original vision as an organisation for women — female people, that is — then transgender women should respect that decision. We can be supporters, friends and allies, but we cannot change sex.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
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.
SubscribeThe Democratic Party is losing rank and file union support based on ideology and its hostility to the economic interests of working Americans. It’s really as simple as that.
Perhaps like racial minorities, labor unions are learning that the Dems no longer serve their interests, if they ever did. Today’s Democratic Party is, first of all, anti-democratic. Second, it is beholden to a few specific moneyed interests – Wall St, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood, to name a few.
It has no interest in people who work with their hands for a living and generally finds them icky. They’re not part of the credentialed class. They don’t spend their time fixating on why allowing abortion in the 7th month is a great idea.
Trump has first-hand experience working with union people. His properties were not built exclusively by non-union labor. That would be impossible in places like New York. He’s also a fan of Americans producing goods that American consumers want to purchase. And he’s not pushing open borders, which is a threat to the skilled as well as the low-skilled.
Linguistic quibble: It’s “toe the line,” not “tow the line.” That misuse is called an eggcorn. Which I didn’t know until I looked it up.
The author misses the most important point. There is a massive political realignment happening in America. The Republican Party under Trump has become the party of the working man and woman. The Democratic Party is now the party of the very wealthy who made their money from tech (not physical things made by workers) and the subsidized poor.
Trump was once a Democrat. He hasnt changed.
“politics not as a battlefield between moral values or ideological visions, but as a bargaining table on which rival material interests can be reconciled“
That is exactly what it should be but to work there has to be some power balance between the material interests. The competing forces of capital, unions, government, the law, the press and the church are no longer balanced.
In the U.K. the church has virtually disappeared and government has given away much of its capability to NGOs who are in hock to the worst instincts of activists, and impervious to democratic control. The law is rapidly becoming partisan as we’ve recently seen in two tier justice. Political parties are in hock to capital (as we’ve also just seen). Big capital is using its control to drive out small capital (through over regulation amongst other things) and has co-opted chunks of the political left with vacuous virtue signalling. Thatcher smashed the unions (necessary at the time but as always the pendulum can swing too far), and impartial journalism is a thing of the past.
The universal franchise, an impartial justice system, and the possibility of organised labour, briefly gave us a period of history where the little man had a say. We’ve let it be taken away.
The little man has plenty of ‘say’. In the UK he gets money whether he works or not, as well as all electronic devices, warmth and food. He can often work from home, so is able take the dog for a long walk as long as he carries his phone. Why should the little man care about who is in control in Westminster?
Purposely ignorant idea of “the little man”.
Why should the little man care about who is in control in Westminster?
Because Westminster cares about the little man. It cares about micromanaging his life, dictating his choices about what to eat, what energy sources to use, the size and nature of his dwelling, and a thousand other things that exist outside the extremely narrow confines of a smartphone screen.
In this scenario, the gentry would be compelled to deal with labour’s demands and perhaps give up their labour market preferences in exchange for guaranteed business investment; while unions in these parts of the country would accept the continued economic leadership and sway of the gentry in exchange for tangible concessions.
This sounds like the sort of socialism that kills; go along with labour demands in exchange for guaranteed investment from the government. If not then no investment (free money). The union would go along with the economic leadership in exchange for “tangible” concessions. What might those tangible concessions be, how would they be any different from now? As long as the unions are happy business will get the money. So we have a battle between business and unions over free money.
Where is the part about competing in a market where the customer decides the economic outcome,the success and growth of a small business. With free money who cares.
Who cares? As long as the politicians get the support they bought and paid for, no one.
That’s partly my point.
Have a look at the division in outlook from those in government and academic unions and those in private sector unions. The UAW, the United Auto Workers, have just over 25% of its workers in academia. Their views on climate, race, gender and Palestine maybe quite different than those of their union brothers and sisters assembling petrol fueled Chevrolets.
The Republican party attracts those who are in middle and working class and in private sector economy (not including Healthcare which is basically a subsidiary of the federal government). The Democrat party attracts those in government, academia and highly regulated industries such as healthcare.
Expect a close election.
Brokerage politics is indeed a viable path forward! A positive, illuminating response
Thoughtful essay.