Read on Twitter
A little thought exercise because both “sex” and “race” are protected characteristics, and both are based on genetics.
Imagine a scene 25 yrs from now when the Race Recognition Act has been passed into law.
Imagine a scene 25 yrs from now when the Race Recognition Act has been passed into law.
One of the beneficiaries of this new law was a white man from London who said that since his youth, he had identified as black. He said he always liked reggae, grew his hair into dreadlocks at 16, and started talking with a heavy Jamaican accent.
He has recently been granted a Race Recognition Certificate after promising to live life as a black man for the rest of his life. He has had all his official documents altered to reflect the fact that he was in fact born black, despite the colour of skin at birth being white.
There was some opposition to this from actually black people who said liking some black music, culture and stereotypes doesn’t actually make you black (gosh, how bigoted is that!) and that allowing white people to become black alters the definition of what being black means.
Supporters of the bill said “race is a spectrum” and pointed to mixed-race people as proof of this. Race is not about biology at all - but our “lived experience”. It’s phobic to exclude white people from being members of the black race. Obviously black people can also be white.
Meanwhile, our beneficiary has recently sued an organisation for refusing to consider him for funding and an award reserved for black people, because he is actually black and has the papers to prove it.
I am of course exaggerating for effect (though you never know).
But, what if rights which are given to people because of their biology (usually in order to level unfair playing fields) suddenly become available to people not of that class but who identify as that class?
But, what if rights which are given to people because of their biology (usually in order to level unfair playing fields) suddenly become available to people not of that class but who identify as that class?
This is one of the reasons why confusing “sex” (what differentiates us biologically) with “gender” (a feeling based on stereotypes) is dangerous.
I am not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to swap genders if you feel the need. I am saying this doesn’t equate to a sex change.
I am not saying you shouldn’t be allowed to swap genders if you feel the need. I am saying this doesn’t equate to a sex change.
Because you cannot change your sex anymore than you can change your race.
Of course, hormones and surgery can produce results which are compelling. Some transpeople are very VERY convincing and live lives where they “pass” in their chosen gender identity.
Of course, hormones and surgery can produce results which are compelling. Some transpeople are very VERY convincing and live lives where they “pass” in their chosen gender identity.
And so sometimes it seems silly to not distinguish between those who have fully transitioned and “pass” unnoticed, and a six-foot coal miner wearing a dress and wig, looking like a drag-queen parody act!
But for statistics and data gathering, both are still male. And when it comes to medical issues that matters.
Our mythical trans-black man won’t really have to worry about sickle cell disease for example, because he is biologically white. Ditto Transmen and testicular cancer.
Our mythical trans-black man won’t really have to worry about sickle cell disease for example, because he is biologically white. Ditto Transmen and testicular cancer.
We need a conversation about how we manage this issue in terms of social policy. It’s not right to make someone live in a “gender role” they don’t feel fits them. It’s equally wrong to redefine what it means to be a woman to accommodate men who think they are women.
You may read my tongue-in-cheek tweets about the white man who thinks he’s black, but for many, me included, this is not dissimilar to how transgenderism is seen: impositional, demanding, based on a clear untruth that biology doesn’t matter or can be changed.
I understand why some need to live in the opposite gender and I don’t advocate against them doing so. In some cases there are good arguments for allowing some fully transitioned transwomen to have access to women’s spaces. I suspect many transwomen pass un-noticed anyway.
But there are strong arguments against it as well - not least the “if it has a penis, it’s not a woman” argument.
And that’s the bit which baffles and alienates me most: the wokey-redefinition of language that “some women have a penis”. No, they don’t, but some transwomen do.
And that’s the bit which baffles and alienates me most: the wokey-redefinition of language that “some women have a penis”. No, they don’t, but some transwomen do.
We need dialogue and it needs to be respectful of both sides of this heavily nuanced subject. But if one side feels imposed upon - in this case, women, then what will happen is women will become radicalised.
And there needs to be a common starting point at which the conversation starts. And the simpler the starting point the better.
And for me, that could usefully be “you cannot change your biology”. Once this is accepted by both sides there is common ground to build on.
And for me, that could usefully be “you cannot change your biology”. Once this is accepted by both sides there is common ground to build on.
