Political White Water

The NZ Herald recently published a highly ideological piece posing as fact-based journalism about a facet of the now common process of trying to achieve systemic and ideological shifts by a process of policy and regulatory change by stealth, ie change sex-specific language related to reproduction, to being “gender inclusive", so as not to exclude or distress transgender and non-binary people who give birth.

Among the population of trans men,  ie natal females who are so uncomfortable with their sexed body they’ve had, or want to have "gender affirming" surgery or change their sex hormone ratio to male levels of androgens, there is a tiny minority who clearly have a sort of selective or partial gender dysphoria which allows them to come off androgens and restore female levels of oestrogen in order to be able to conceive and to gestate a foetus for nine months.

Such people have the inalienable right to be treated with the exactly the same degree of care and respect as all women should be afforded, and if it makes them feel more at ease and included, we should use terms that are acceptable to them.

However, we all need to take account of the fact that trans men with selective gender dysphoria are a tiny minority of the minority of what is a very small minority in the wider population, so to risk provoking the mother and father of all socially conservative backlashes by effectively trying to force an unpopular change on the overwhelming majority, seems a tad lacking in strategic nous.  

The obvious question of course is: why did trans ideologues and activists not start with a demand to add on trans-specific terms rather than try to force through what was always going to be seen as a form of erasure, and potentially unpopular among a large number of people from across political parties, class, age, culture…

We should support those trans men who are able and want to carry a baby,  but not in a way that effectively erases such words and phrases as “mother”, “maternity”, “woman” & “breast feeding,” because that way lies the Charybdis of extreme social conservatism which can and will swallow the identity canoe in an electoral heartbeat.

It'll probably be fine for those in the canoe who are wearing life jackets, but a lot of people might metaphorically drown. 

Given this issue (along with sports and paediatric transition), has already provoked a conservative backlash, it seems daft to make it worse by trying to hide strategic ineptitude, moral cowardice, and political opportunism by blaming women who object, and labelling them as TERFs, and then declare TERFs to be Nazis.

That’s politically infantile and will serve to intensify the backlash and further stigmatise the Left.

The simple fact is, in order to change incredibly deeply entrenched beliefs, you have to be armed with extraordinarily compelling arguments and evidence, not rely on claiming to be "on the right side of history", or guilt-tripping people.

And, of course, the fact that we haven’t seen a similar change by stealth in the language around men's health and parental roles speaks volumes. 

Well, it does to those who are prepared to listen.

I'd not take issue with a process of policy changes by stealth if I believed it was for the greater good, but in respect of trying to persuade people that it's both fair and reasonable to dispense entirely with "feminised" words and phrases relating to reproduction – well, I’ve always seen some big political rapids downstream of that, and as the gender identity canoe is being paddled by people who are clearly incapable of reading the water, it probably won't end well.