By: Sarah Haider
Published: May 3, 2023
As I’m finalizing the Unbeliever’s Manifesto, I’m feeling a bit nervous about the audience such a strong position is bound to attract.
I am fascinated by gender because I am interested in irrationalities and how social dynamics distort our thinking, and this topic is a goldmine where both are concerned. Additionally, I want to “speak out” because I believe this particular irrationality will hurt a lot of people.
However, not all who are on my side of the aisle have arrived through the same path, nor do we share the same commitments. Highly religious people, as one obvious example, undergird their anti-gender stance in their faith, which I obviously do not share. What I also don’t share, however, are some of the commitments of the feminists, who make up the other significant cohort.
To be clear, on the whole I give a lot of credit to gender-critical feminists, and find many of their most powerful voices both admirable and interesting.
But they also get on my nerves.
At least the conservatives can claim, justifiably, that they had no hand in fostering the gender movement. But feminists are not so intellectually distinct from the gender crowd, no matter how much at odds their movements might be today.
For instance, even in the radical/gender-critical camp, too many feminists are happy to deny biological sex when convenient. Yes, GC fems, we agree that men are (on average) more prone to sexual violence. Are we now willing to acknowledge that they might be more prone to other things too–even some that are valued by society? Men are (on average) the more criminal sex, sure. Can we acknowledge that they are (on average) the more courageous sex, too? (That, indeed, those are two manifestations of the same drives?)
I notice a second-order denialism, too. Feminists will blame John Money for pioneering the concept of gender, and I will agree that he shares some blame. They might also point to queer theorists like Judith Butler for laying the intellectual groundwork for gender ideology, and I will agree that they played an important role. But what about Shulamith Firestone? What about the decades of campaigns by feminists downplaying the role of biological sex differences, casting all apparent dimorphism as a result of “socialization”? Wasn’t this priming necessary to arrive where we are today? I could go on (and maybe I will eventually), but suffice to say that an honest appraisal would find that not only did the feminist movement play a part in paving the way for the gender movement, it was in many ways the most crucial stepping stone.
Beyond these ideological differences, it seems I look upon gender ideologists in a different light than do many feminists—a difference that became clear a few days ago when I made the mistake of showing some sympathy for the trans TikTok star, Dylan Mulvaney. I understand why many find Mulvaney terribly offensive–I share this feeling. I understand that Dylan is popularizing a trend that is bound to hurt many people. It is possible that this person is a cynical manipulator–many in “show business” are. Or perhaps, Mulvaney is simply a run-of-the-mill attention addict, desperate for any claim to fame.
But a more sympathetic interpretation is possible, too.
It is possible that many people who gravitate towards gender ideology are seeking a solution to some unformed distress, it is possible that they honestly believe what they say, it is possible that they are simply wrong, not “evil”.
It is not my instinct to automatically view my ideological opponents as my enemies–even if they are causing a great deal of harm. Insofar as they are honest about their convictions, I see them instead as the followers of a false god, victims as much as anyone else. Detransitioners will often characterize their transition as a form of self-harm–and indeed if the anti-gender camp is correct, then that may be true of many current transitioners, who are taking on enormous risks with their health.
It is possible that one’s opponents are doing something harmful mostly because they are bad, or that they are doing something harmful mostly because they are wrong, and don’t know that what they are doing is harmful.
I’m not naive, and don’t imagine that everyone at the table has fantastic intentions and is simply mistaken. I just think it is possible that, more often than not, the intentions of both sides run in the same direction–that most people do feel that what they are doing is good–and that the difference lies largely in how one understands what is good.
I realize that this is easy enough to say—many people struggle with managing their feelings in this arena, especially if they have been personally harmed. Anger and even hatred are not unwarranted emotions here, and I don’t shame anyone for having them. I won’t say the same about acting on them, however—anger (even when understandable and thus, rational) can easily mutate into irrationality and, then, injustice. So it seems to me that it is good/smart to work to temper such feelings, for the good of one’s own self-interest, if nothing else.
==
“Gender is a social construct” originated in feminist theory. Its purpose was to deny the scientific, biological reality of average sex-based differences across populations, such as maternal instinct, and people-vs-things preferences. Just ask James Damore what happens when you say “hey, maybe men and women are different.” That’s how you end up with a paper written by Judith Lorber and Patricia Yancey Martin titled “The Socially Constructed Body: Insights From Feminist Theory.”
The purpose being to insist that men and women are the same, have the same tendencies, the same preferences, etc. And that those purported differences are artificially created due to brainwashing by “the patriarchy” to create oppression. Boys and men don’t really have a higher average tendency towards aggression and risk-taking, they’re just “socialized” (brainwashed) that way. Girls and women don’t really have greater population-wide tendency towards agreeableness, or a maternal instinct, they’re just “socialized” (brainwashed) to think so. The fact these sex-based differences have been repeatedly observed and reproduced across cultures and geographies just proves how extensive the patriarchal conspiracy really is. /s
The Queer Theorist feminists developing gender ideology took this on wholesale: since there’s no intrinsic difference between woman and man, female and male, if someone is socialized to perform the role of “woman,” that must be a woman, penis or otherwise. That’s how you end up with Judith Butler insisting that “gender is in no way a stable identity... it is... instituted through a stylized repetition of acts.... the mundane way in which bodily gestures, movements, and enactments of various kinds constitute the illusion of an abiding gendered self.“ Gender isn’t something you are, it’s something you do.
It’s notable that there’s no such thing as a TIRF. Feminist ideology inherently includes gender identity ideology as a pillar; it’s the Es that are heretics and blasphemers. At bottom, this war is a denominational schism between feminist denominations, much like the Catholic-Protestant schism.
The GC feminists haven’t yet figured out they can’t assert social constructivism and deny biology to justify “the patriarchy” (and blame men) while simultaneously denying social constructivism and asserting biology to argue against gender identity ideology (and blame men). One or the other. God can’t be both good and mysterious.