The Exclusivity of International Women’s Day

This is the fifth and final blog post in our 2020-21 student series on feminism and politics. Click here for the previous post by Kirsten Synnöve Watson on Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin.

Written by Deborah Rodger, BA (Hons) Politics and International Relations

International Women’s Day on 8^th March has long been a focal point in the international movement for women’s rights. For some, the day provides an opportunity to draw attention to the still prevalent challenges we face in achieving gender equality. For others, it is defined as a day to hail traditional female roles. For others still – myself included – it is a day for inclusivity and diversity, celebrating all women, regardless if they are lesbian, bisexual, or, particularly, transgender. Irrespective of what this day should embody, however, numerous people not only habitually disregard, but intentionally refuse to include those who are transgender. On this view, International Women’s Day is for those born ‘women’ only, and the trans population should be excluded. 

‘Transwomen are men’. Photo credit: Meaghan Jackson-Doucet, source: https://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/01/22/vancouver-womens-march-becomes-opportunity-misogynist-threats-women/

In 2020, in particular, the celebration of International Women’s Day highlighted the discrimination often faced by transgender women. Notably, radical feminist writer Julie Bindel, composed a piece for the Telegraph regarding this year’s celebrations, titled ‘International Women’s Day has been hijacked by trans activists’. Bindel repeatedly asserts that ‘woman’ is not a figment of anyone’s imagination. She contends that issues such as forced marriage, rape, sexual harassment, domestic violence and everyday casual sexism happen to women and girls because we are born female, not just because we identify as women. She claims that if it were that easy, then women would be identifying out of the oppression we face. Bindel is just one of many feminists that has this viewpoint, claiming that a women’s biological sex is a material reality, and no one individual can identify their way into being a woman. For example, in 2018, a woman was photographed at a Women’s March in Vancouver with the placard above while, in the UK, feminist blogger Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull took part in a segment on the This Morning show to share her view that trans-women aren’t real women.

'Feminist Blogger Believes Trans-Women Aren’t Real Women', This Morning, YouTube.

These are the kind of feminists that claim inequality and misogyny only targets those who were born with female sex features, including vaginas, uteruses and ovaries. We can call these types of feminists ‘trans-exclusionary’ - and they should cause concern for the rest of us wanting to achieve equality. There is a recurring historical pattern of feminists using claims about women’s difference from men to obscure the needs of women of colour, women with disabilities and working-class women. The exclusion of transgender women from International Women’s Day suggests they are at risk of becoming the next manifestation of this pattern. According to Robin Dembroff, it is views like those of Bindel and Keen-Minshull that are preventing feminism and equality from moving forward.

Perhaps a useful place to start when thinking about feminism, women’s rights and transgender rights, is the sex/gender dichotomy that has been employed by feminists over the years. Initially, during the second wave of feminism beginning in the 1960s, feminists sought to separate sex and gender, analysing them as corresponding to biology and culture respectively. Feminists during this time argued that the discrimination women faced was socially constructed as opposed to biologically determined. As Joanne Conaghan explains, this theory worked to an extent, but when it came to advocating for issues such as pregnancy in the workplace the possibility for debate arose, as in some respects, females were biologically different from males and as such social arrangements that echoed this difference could not be seen as discriminatory. This second-wave feminism was also particularly flawed regarding issues of racial discrimination. Feminists that belonged to minority groups questioned the notion of shared female ‘difference’ and intersectional feminism rose to prominence. As crystallised by Kimberlé Crenshaw, intersectional feminism asserted that inequalities faced by individuals were multidimensional.[1] For example, the inequalities faced by a black woman derive from the fact that she is not solely black or a woman, but rather a black woman. Basically, if you are an individual that belongs to more than one oppressed group, you’re likely to face the combined problems of both groups as opposed to just one. See, for example, women and the racial wealth divide. When the historical legacy of the racial wealth divide is combined with gender inequality, women of colour are made uniquely economically insecure. This concept of intersectionality has allowed feminism to develop a more complex analysis of inequality and the role and restrictions of gender.

‘The Urgency of Intersectionality’, Kimberlé Crenshaw, TEDWomen, Youtube.

Regarding gender as a socially constructed concept has ultimately paved the way for some feminists to view sex, as well as gender, as socially constructed and culturally ingrained.[2] Judith Butler's work has been influential on this score,[3] particularly her theory of performativity. This framework does not say that differences between the bodies of men and women do not exist, but rather that the way we comprehend the body is socially constructed. Those who believe in sexual dimorphism may be trying to make sense of the natural world. However, Butler and others argue that social, biological and psychological differences do not result in us observing two genders; rather, our seeing of two genders results in the ‘discovery’ of social, biological, and psychological differences.[4] Furthermore, sticking to the socially constructed, strict male-female division regarding both gender and sex can often lead to violence, inequality, oppression and exclusion.[5] According to a report conducted by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation, more than 130 transgender and non-binary people have been killed in the US since 2013. The report states that trans women of colour, particularly black trans women, are disproportionately affected by fatal violence, highlighting the need for intersectionality. 

Going back to the article written by Bindel, we can see that regarding womanhood as aligning purely with those born female excludes trans women. And not just from International Women’s Day, as evident in the recent announcement from the Trump administration rolling back anti-discrimination policies for trans people in the US health care system. However, it can be argued that the alignment of womanhood with being born female is a social and political construct and therefore contestable. This means that trans women have as much of a right to celebrate International Women’s Day as any of us.

To be a ‘woman’ is what we celebrate on International Women’s Day, and yes it is a day to celebrate women, and our achievements and the progress we have made over the years, but it is also clear that, for some women, the forces working against them fester so badly that it is hard for them to feel part of a global push to equality. The belief that there are two sexes only, and that being masculine and feminine is natural and not a matter of choice, is held with such conviction that it is often impossible to challenge.[6] Unless we make a profound effort to fight for all women’s rights every single day, equality will never be fully achieved. The claim by Bindel that trans activists are hijacking International Women’s Day is simply not true. Womanhood can be experienced in very diverse ways, depending on our social, economic and cultural positioning as well as whether we are cis or trans. Trans people continue to be one of the most invisible groups targeted for discrimination based on gender and sex identity and we need the gender equality agenda to include and centre their experiences.  A ‘woman’ is a social category and a personal identification, and should not be limited to one’s original biology or socially assigned gender role. The Black feminist bell hooks defined feminism as ‘a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression’,[7] and trans women have to be integrated into this movement if it is to be successful. As Arron Philip (model and disability rights activist) states, “Trans women are women at the end of the day. Every woman is a woman. Women are multifaceted, intergenerational, international. They are limitless, formless… women are the world’.

‘Trans Rights are Human Rights’, photo credit: Michael N/Pacific/BarcroftImages, source: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/19/valerie-jackson-trans-women-misogyny-feminism

I for one do not wish to be associated with a feminism that fails to embrace the rights and challenge the difficulties of trans women. And when I celebrate International Women’s Day in 2021, I will celebrate it for all women. It is clear that feminism has often relied on insights and observations from marginalised groups to develop and improve in the past, and it is no different today. Perhaps the underlying social acceptance of trans women has to be tackled first, before we can celebrate International Women’s Day fully and before feminism itself can evolve.

Notes

---

[1] Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine. Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum 1(8)

[2] Shepherd, L. (2015). ‘Sex or Gender? Bodies in World Politics and Why Gender Matters’ in Shepherd, ed, Gender Matters in Global Politics. London: Routledge

[3] Butler, J. (1999). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. 2^nd Edition. London: Routledge.

[4] Hawkesworth, M. (2013). ‘Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: From Naturalized Presumption to Analytical Categories’ in Georgina Waylen et al, The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[5] Carrera, M.V. DePalma, R. and Lameiras, M. (2012). Sex/gender identity: moving beyond fixed and ‘natural’ categories. Sexualities, 15(8), pp.995-1016

[6] Hawkesworth, M. (2013). ‘Sex, Gender, and Sexuality: From Naturalized Presumption to Analytical Categories’ in Georgina Waylen et al, The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

[7] hooks, b. (2000). ‘Feminism: A Movement to End Sexist Oppression’. In Feminism is for Everybody. Boston: South End Press.