Loose lips

When the language of biological sex is stripped of meaning, it's the rights of women and girls that are left exposed

Photo by Etienne Girardet on Unsplash

Indefinitions

The UK Supreme Court was recently required to determine the meaning of “man”, “woman” and “sex” in the Equality Act 2010. The campaign group For Women Scotland initiated this case to challenge the legal fiction that transwomen—males who adopt their interpretation of the gender of a woman—are women and therefore must be included in all the sex-based rights of a woman.

“What is a woman?” first became a political issue in 1973 at the West Coast Lesbian Conference in Los Angeles. The organising group became split over how to refer to the folksinger booked to perform, Beth Elliott, who was transsexual. Robin Morgan, the keynote speaker, said—

“I will not call a male ‘she’; 32 years of suffering in this androcentric society and of surviving have earned me the title ‘woman’; one walk down the street by a male transvestite, five minutes of his being hassled (which he may enjoy), and then he dares, he dares to think he understands our pain? No, in our mothers’ names and in our own, we must not call him sister.”

The question remained an issue in some feminist circles but largely out of the public forum, until the development of the internet and social media meant that ideas could spread rapidly far and wide. The belief that transwomen are women is supported by a subgroup of feminists who recognise that women are often not only repressed by their sex, but also by their race, class, sexual orientation, abilities and gender roles—with these forms of oppression intersecting. What I struggle to understand is how they came to the view that the “gender” category included transwomen.

My own experience of working with transwomen, referred to as transsexuals until around 2000, was that their main goal was to pass as a woman and not draw attention to themselves. They knew they didn’t change sex and that being referred to as “she” was a courtesy rather than reality. There were no meltdowns if they were “misgendered”, they were aware some people might not approve, they were at peace with their choice—and I had no idea which facilities they used.

The first I heard of the demand that “transwomen are women” was in 2021 when I had to respond to a (later dismissed) complaint against me to my professional society, and I in all innocence wrote “transwomen”, not “trans women”. Apparently, this confirmed my transphobia because the space between the words makes it clear that “trans” is an adjective describing a subset of women, but without the space it implies, well, they are men who live as women.

For my continuing enlightenment, I use social media sites such as YouTube and X/Twitter, which reveal the stranglehold that modern transgender theory has on all aspects of government policy, including health, law, education, and female rights.

Everything must be queered

I discovered that what was ostensibly a movement for the acceptance of people who identified as the opposite gender was in fact part of a much broader campaign to upend social norms for sex, sexuality, and gender identification—a movement supported by the new “Queer theory” which emerged in the early 1990s.

The primary goal is to legitimise an individual’s personal gender identification, such as non-binary, genderqueer, genderfluid and so on, and also sexual expression, including forms of a paraphilia such as exhibitionism or transvestism—without any limits on what these may be.

To achieve this, Queer advocates have worked hard to disrupt the connection between biology and sex by challenging the reality that sex is binary and immutable. They use the simple strategy of determinedly demanding the abandonment of the long-accepted understanding and meaning of words like sex, gender, female, male, woman, man, girl, and boy.

A major protagonist, Judith Butler, confidently declared that because gender is a social construct and gender is associated with sex, then sex is also a social construct, and so, if a man decides he is a woman, he thereby changes sex and is by this definition a biological female: so that transwomen and transgirls must have the right to all female spaces, sports, associations, awards, and so on.

This blurring of any boundaries between female and male is supported by uninformed claims that sex is a spectrum and there is no reliable way to determine who is female and who is male. And so it supposedly follows that there is no foolproof way to identify a person’s sex, thus rendering a biological definition meaningless.

Definitions based on biological science—

Woman (noun): an adult female human being

Female (adjective): of or denoting the sex that can bear offspring or produce eggs, distinguished biologically by the production of gametes (ova) that can be fertilised by male gametes

Man (noun): an adult male human being

Male (adjective): of or denoting the sex that produces gametes, especially spermatozoa, with which a female may be fertilised or inseminated to produce offspring

Gender (noun): the male sex or the female sex, especially when considered with reference to social and cultural differences rather than biological ones, or one of a range of other identities that do not correspond to established ideas of male and female

---

Video: Helen Joyce, of the advocacy group Sex Matters, celebrates the reality-affirming decision of the UK Supreme Court

Rule Britannia

The UK Equality Act, while protecting against discrimination based on sex and gender reassignment, doesn’t explicitly define “woman” or “man”, allowing trans activists the wriggle room they needed to claim that a man/male could be a woman/female.

It seems the legal system relied on the long-accepted biological definitions of sex, man and woman, assuming these are so rooted in biological reality as to be inviolable.

The power of language—

“Language is not just a medium of communication; it’s a lens through which we view the world and a mould that shapes our identity. From shaping cultural perceptions to influencing personal identities, language’s role is pivotal in constructing our social and personal realities.”

The campaign to push trans ideology has been a masterclass in how to sell a product that has more faults than benefits. The key to this success was the creation of a compelling message and the constant repetition of key words, despite the lack of evidence to support their use—

Trans people are the most vulnerable, marginalised group

Gender-questioning young people will suicide if not supported to transition

Sex is assigned at birth, not observed

A child can be born in the wrong body

Gender is innate and a child knows their true identity even from an early age

Women as cis women

Trans women are women

“Gender-affirming care” reinforces the idea that if a person—child or adult—says they are trans, they are trans

To suggest young people are being influenced by social contagion is insulting

Health professionals who want a comprehensive assessment and differential diagnosis are gatekeepers

Any attempt to explore other explanations of the person’s distress is conversion therapy

Disorders of Sexual Development are “natural variations”

Lesbians and gays who won’t consider sex with someone of the opposite sex who “identifies” as a lesbian or gay are told they have a genital fetish

Anyone who disagrees with any of this is a bigot and transphobic

---

Paperwork

Because the definitions of woman and man have universally been based on the biology of reproduction—ever since humans could think about these things—members of the UK government who were tasked with developing the Equality Act in 2010 had no reason to predict that a group with the political aim to disrupt long-held social norms would so blatantly deny biological reality.

To be fair, I think the early push for formal recognition of a man as a woman wasn’t necessarily always part of a wide conspiracy. What I learnt from my trans clients was that while it was satisfying to live in the gender role they preferred, it was embarrassing to have only sex-based documents of identification. One transwoman told me of being pulled over by police for a random breath test and of the reaction of the police when they saw the details on the licence, and I understood their distress. But none of the transwomen I know insist they have changed sex and are now biological females.

Given that having documents inconsistent with their expressed gender was an issue for many trans people, it became part of the initial campaign for social acceptance to gain the right to change at least some of their documents: my client would have been happy if this were limited to their driver’s licence.

However, the wider agenda of Queer advocates was to challenge all social norms that restricted an individual’s choices about identity. Over time, with the support of the biopsychobabble of people like Butler, the transwomen of more recent times became militant in their demands to be treated in every way as a woman.

On social media there are transwomen who insist, without any sense of embarrassment, that they are biological females in every cell, and some claim they have a menstrual cycle, premenstrual tension or other strictly female conditions. Some simulate birth using “butt babies”. Others claim to have miscarried or been a victim of sexual assault, seeking to be included in female support groups.

But it doesn’t stop there. What is obvious on social media platforms is that the trans umbrella has just kept expanding to include autogynephilics, exhibitionists, voyeurs, cross dressers, paedophiles and others with any one of an astounding range of fetishes. A non-biological definition of woman helps legitimise their activities and afford them access to female spaces such as change rooms—and women may have no legal power to block them. And just like that, females of all ages lost their sex-based rights.

Dr Woke will see you now

So, it is not surprising there are men who are far from happy with the Supreme Court judgment establishing that the term “woman” in the Equality Act refers to biological sex, not gender identity.

What is disturbing is the reaction from a health professional body such as the British Medical Association, which refers to the court ruling as “reductive, trans- and intersex-exclusionary and biologically nonsensical”. It seems there are medical practitioners who cannot confidently distinguish a female from a male under any circumstances. This is particularly concerning if the practitioner works in an emergency department and is presented with an unconscious patient who may need sex-based care, as for example, in cases of cardiac arrest.

The accusation that defining a woman as an adult female human is “reductive” is plain weird, and the level of ignorance required by these medical practitioners to sustain it is stunning. Apparently, because females can be distinguished from males by their differing roles in reproduction, using that as a basis for a definition is claimed to mean that women are only ever regarded as baby makers, not complex human beings with a wide range of individual differences in all areas of life.

After the success of second-wave feminism in breaking down gender stereotypes so we women can now live as we please, with or without children and certainly not under the control of men, it is trans activists who use biological parts and functions in the mandatory “inclusive language” of health and education services: person with a womb or a front hole or a penis or prostate or who menstruates. This is dehumanising in the extreme.

The absurdity these claims is revealed by this parallel—

“Human (noun): a bipedal primate mammal”

Does this mean humans are reduced to nothing more than a species that can walk on two legs? That our highly developed cognitive skills are being ignored? Or that people born with no limbs aren’t human?

Australia in disarray

What is particularly galling about the situation in Australia is that there was a biological definition of woman in the federal Sex Discrimination Act of 1984. In 2013, when Julia Gillard was serving as our first female prime minister, parliament removed any definition of woman or man, female or male, specifically to make it easier for trans people to change their identification documents, including birth certificates. As a result, with the self-ID laws now established in most Australian jurisdictions, males can change legal sex with minimal conditions that are easily circumvented.

As a consequence of the defect introduced to federal anti-discrimination law, the judge in the Tickle v Giggle case—where a transwoman claimed discrimination for exclusion from a female-only social media app—upheld the legal fiction that a man can become a woman. Ms Sall Grover, owner of the Giggle for Girls platform, is challenging the decision.

This case has energised Australian women to campaign for restoration to federal law of the biological definitions.

---

Video: Australian businesswoman Sall Grover explains what she’s up against

Empty words

It is self-evident that clear communication requires a common understanding of the words being used. The biological definition of “woman” is at the heart of transwomen’s discontent because no matter how many drugs they take or surgery they have, they remain biological men. The only way they can get legal recognition as a woman is to render that word meaningless and thus open to individual interpretation.

These are the preferred definitions in trans ideology—

“Gender: refers to the way in which a person identifies or expresses their masculine or feminine characteristics. A person’s gender identity or gender expression is not always exclusively male or female and may change over time

“Gender expression: refers to the way in which a person externally expresses their gender or how they are perceived by others

“Gender identity: refers to a person’s deeply held internal and individual feeling of gender”

In the trans world, sex characteristics don’t define a person’s sex because activists insist that sex can be wrongly assigned at birth, so sex characteristics are covered by a single definition—

“Sex characteristics: refers to a person’s primary and secondary sex characteristics, for example an individual’s sex chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs, genitals, and breast and hair development”

There is no definition of woman or man in any compendium of approved trans terminology. Instead, there is a neat sidestep, as suggested by Butler, away from the sex-based words “female” and “male” to the claim that adopting their version of the gender role of a woman means that the transwoman becomes a biological woman regardless of physical sex characteristics.

However, when someone uses a word, it must have a meaning, a definition, for it to be in any way useful. This leaves the question of what definition do men use to decide they are a woman? What criteria form that belief? What is this “deeply held and internal feeling” of being a woman?

The paradox for these men is that because they weren’t born and raised female, they cannot know what it is to be a woman, which forces them to find their own criteria.

They can only observe women and make assumptions, and put their own interpretation on what they see. Does a transwoman admire women and fantasise about copying them, or does he envy them for having something he wants and tries to take? Does he resent women and want to dictate to them, to give him power over them?

Whatever the motivation to claim to be a woman, do these men nevertheless have the same criteria, or do they adapt their list to meet their circumstances? For example, does a transvestite think being a woman is about wearing culturally feminine clothing, compared to an autogynephilic male who thinks a woman is only defined by their external sex characteristics?

Whatever definitions he is acting on, none of them makes him a woman. Clearly, without an agreed definition, the word “woman” in trans world is meaningless; more accurately he could identify as a “non-man”, although this would not change his male biological status.

It is noteworthy that no one is asking “what is a man?”. The reason? Because although there are women who identify as men, they don’t threaten male rights in any way. If a man objected to a transman in change rooms or toilets, she would be out of there very quickly, and in sports she is at a biological disadvantage, so why bother? It is hard enough for some men to accept that women are men’s equals, so getting a man to believe that a woman can literally become a man is a tough ask.

There is some evidence of a biological basis for being transgender, which would be a significant advance for assessing who is trans and who isn’t, but I understand many trans activists aren’t happy about this option.

Birds and bees

Trans activists oppose the biological definition of woman not because it isn’t accurate, but because it brings down the house of cards that gender ideology is based on.

Words that have no meaning are, literally, meaningless and therefore useless. If there were no biological definition of female and male cattle, they are all cows. How does a farmer know which one to milk? If overlapping characteristics make it impossible to separate one organism from another, how do we know which animal is a cat or a dog? If sex doesn’t define male and female, how do animal breeders know which pair to mate?

But what concerns me the most is the medical practitioners who oppose the UK decision with the claim there is no clear difference between a woman and a man; words fail me. There is a reference book that might help them: Peter Mayles’ “Where Did I Come From?”.

The biological definitions of woman and man define the separate roles in reproduction, not who we are as women and men.

Open sesame!

The words “I am a woman”, when spoken by a male, have become the magic key that opens the door to the cave of much-desired female rights for his unfettered use.

This isn’t about the rare male who for whatever reason holds the genuine belief that he could quietly live his best life in his version of being a woman, it is about male entitlement enabled by Queer theory advocates in academia, captured politicians, complicit media, and health professionals who have abandoned science and reason for ideology and belief.

I never thought, as a second-wave feminist of the 1970s and 80s, that I would have to get back in the trenches to once again fight for female rights…

Dr Sandra Pertot retired not long ago after 50 years of practice as a clinical psychologist specialising in human sexuality, including sexual dysfunction, sexual orientation and gender diversity