Gender and political sorting

In September, I observed at Liberal Currents that the political Right has drawn a line in the sand, making immigration a political sorting issue—one that determines if someone is on the Left* or the Right*. Parties around the world on the Right have been able to stake out an extreme position (seeking closed borders) and brand the political Left as a movement of extremists (with accusations of seeking open borders). The political Left is not coherent and consolidated and has been too busy denying and arguing about what it believes (or should believe) to usefully fight back. This has contributed to the general shift away from liberal immigration policy.

A similar dynamic is playing out with gender politics. The Right has latched onto the least popularly accepted issue in gender politics (trans rights) and used it as a wedge to attack liberal gender politics generally (not only trans people—abortion access; women’s roles, especially in education; and LGBTQ+). This attack is two-pronged:

• To appeal to accessible voters, thinkers, and activists, the Right uses the same strategy as with immigration: they ascribe extreme policy positions to their opponents by railing against imagined policies or those represented by only a few fringe individuals.

• To firm up its base on gender politics, those on the Right also argue that private decisions about who to be, what healthcare to use, and whom to respect are not private but public and harmful. They are not against gender politics. They are for enforced, uniform, socially/politically conservative gender politics.

As with immigration, Right-wing parties around the world are using government power to restrict individuals who would deviate from conservative or reactionary gender politics. There is no really-existing equivalent of extreme positions backed by power in opposition to the political Right. The really-existing alternative to the reactionary policy on the Right is the (not great for trans folks!) status quo.

It is not hyperbole to call the policies we’re talking about reactionary. They are also inhumane and extreme compared to the status quo. Trying to control what care kids can get takes that control away from parents and gives it to legislators. Kids who can’t access puberty blockers (this is almost exclusively what we mean when we talk about gender-affirming care for children, trans or not) will need more drastic and invasive interventions later to reverse unwanted physical changes. Care bans turn the changing bodies of children into an unrelenting physical reminder of both their body’s betrayal and society’s rejection. Anti-trans policies make the genitals of everyone heading for a bathroom public business.

Don’t let it become cliché to say the cruelty is the point.

Those opposed to the Right’s political project are fumbling again. There is no united front in opposition to these harmful policies. It doesn’t matter why—high-profile folks on the centre-left might believe they can defuse these issues with political deftness; they might be personally uncomfortable talking about trans issues and unaccustomed to discomfort with their own side; maybe their identity or their career as a political expert is challenged if gender politics and immigration can’t be handled like they were before.

I have the least sympathy for those who entertain the fantasy that throwing a few of the most vulnerable people we can find to the wolves will do anything other than feed wolves. But there’s probably some version of that at work—just let the trans stuff slide, we’ve got more pressing concerns.

It is tempting for those trying to hold onto the broader liberal consensus to shy away from what they brand “culture war issues”, but it’s naive and negligent. It’s too late. Gender is already a major political issue. It has already been mobilized by one-half of the political spectrum. It unifies far-right women and crunchy trad lady influencers. It unifies bro culture with the Christian right. It is behind attacks on reproductive healthcare freedom. The horse is out of the barn and into the hospital, and too many people are standing on the farm arguing about whether the barn door should have been closed.

Representatives of the Trump administration shared with The Free Press the night before Trump’s second inauguration that one of the first acts of the new administration would be an attack on trans people—and indeed, the order was signed on day one. While a lot of the excuses for the attack on trans rights have to do with protecting children, this executive order is general. It will affect adults, and adults in the employ or custody of the government most directly.

This is not a surprise. It was loudly advertised. Anyone who saw this and hoped it would not be a priority for the administration when they voted for Donald Trump was negligent and is culpable for the suffering that will follow.

But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing to be done. Liberals have long said that one of the most important things the government should do is protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. Well, pitter patter. Get to it.

Recs

Zack Beauchamp’s article at Vox discussing the type of politics that frames an attack on liberal gender norms as the protection of women is a useful read.

This new piece at Liberal Currents by Toby Buckle about our meta-narratives on gender was really helpful, it’s worth your time.

And, as I shared in my post on Liberal Assumptions: If you’re thinking about gender and liberalism, Liberal Currents is indispensable. Here are a few of my favourites:

Misinformation Against Trans Healthcare by Vikas Valiveti
Gender as Art by Jason Kuznicki
The Biopolitics of Youth Transition and The Actual Ubiquity of Gender-Affirming Care by Samantha Hancox-Li
Abandoning Trans Rights Is Not A Path to Victory by Sophia Hottel

*

*I understand why people don’t like the Left/Right political binary. I am using it in the way that Steve Davies used it back in 2018—as purely descriptive shorthand for the defining split between dominant parties or coalitions. It’s a little weird to use right now because a better descriptor is probably “Right” and “not-Right”. The political Right is much more consolidated and coherent in many countries and even on an international scale. But “not-Right” is clumsier than “Left” even if there is no “the Left”. Besides, what constitutes “right” and “left” in politics is shifting around generally—the Right is certainly not for free markets or against regulation these days. So Left/Right should not be taken to imply that anyone endorses everything generally on the side they fall in with. Yet these are the words we use, and these are the political splits we’re working with.

Featured image is from Nils Vogt on Unsplash.