Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team
Utrecht University’s Studium Generale held an event called Transgender Rights Under Pressure on Nov. 29. In the announcement we read: “The ‘antigender movement’ is becoming more and more fierce. She opposes the new Transgender Act, which is supposed to make it easier to change your gender.”
It is remarkable here to portray opponents of the new transgender law as part of the anti-gender movement. The speakers and organizers of this meeting will no doubt know that criticism of the bill is possible without being an opponent of gender transition or seeking to diminish the rights of transgender persons.
Here we see the now common turn for the “left” that people with whom one disagrees are allowed to be caricatured (in this case as anti-trans) without hesitation. Were the drafters of the current transgender law also anti-trans simply because they did not want to make the move to the current proposal at the time? Of course not, they were very explicitly pro-trans.
Surely the November 22, 2023 elections to the House of Representatives have clearly shown that the systematic leftist caricature of positions of the right in elections plays right into the hands of the right and fatally undermines the credibility of the left. One could, of course, learn something from this. Namely, that you better look at the positions of others with some respect. Using “anti-trans” as a label for opponents of the new transgender law expressly does not show that respect. We now know that it is precisely by dealing with political opponents in this extremely careless way that the position of these opponents is strengthened.
We are opponents of radical co-essentialism, which sees gender as ultimately malleable, as a characteristic that simply comes about per a person’s will. We are committed to a moderate gender-critical movement in the Netherlands, through which the undesirable consequences of a co-essentialist trans-ideology can be fought without compromising the fundamental rights and social position of transgender people. See also AGTRT-BF21 and AGTRT-BF16.
Read more about our efforts to develop a Middle-of-the-Road approach to gender:
Our middle-of-the-road approach to gender is the middle of seven flavors of gender theory
With the UU’s unsubtle and colorful announcement, the radical voices within the gender-critical movement are only getting wind in their sails. This was evidenced by the vehement attacks launched on social media by TERFs from VOORZIJ against UU immediately after the event was announced.
In fact, these TERFs themselves have no good arguments at all for their crusade against transgender people and thus must rely on anti-establishment sentiment. UU’s Studium Generale gave the TERFs a great gift, so to speak. Therefore, it is also in the interest of transgender people for universities to start speaking out more nuanced and less ideological in the gender debate.
Learn more about the TERFs of FORZIJ:
The sputtering of the NederTERFjes does not change their outdated position on gender
Being nuanced, by the way, is just as important for critics of the transgender movement. Things do not always go well there either, as the recent column by Bert Keizer in Trouw (Nov. 24), among others, showed.
Keizer argues that unfortunately, one cannot ask questions about gender dysphoria and its treatment without coming under unpleasant fire from the transgender movement. We understand what Keizer wants to say and initially we agree. But at the same time, then, it is important that Keizer also keep abreast of the commonly accepted science on gender.
As if it would go without saying, Keizer writes, “Gender is your inner sense of being male or female, gender is your anatomical masculinity or femininity.” This is not consistent with recent literature where “gender identity” is now used for what Keizer calls gender. Furthermore, biological sex anno nowadays is no longer a matter of anatomy (not even at the magisterium of the Roman Catholic Church in Rome, and that is saying something). We further note that in the German bill on gender, “Geschlecht” has exactly gender as its meaning (and explicitly not biological sex).
Moreover, Keizer’s terminology is severely outdated. To the questions “what is a man?” and “what is a woman?” he would answer (if we read this correctly): that is determined by biological sex. We believe that the modern definitions of “male/female” is: an adult person of male/female gender. And then one can disagree on the definition of gender and on the operationalization of the chosen definition. This is precisely where the conflict regarding the now pending proposal on the new transgender law comes into play.
Read more about the problems with biological determinism:
Essentialist thinking about gender is often paradoxical and unreasonable, but can also be moderate
It is additionally unfortunate that Keizer does not comment on whether gender transition offers a solution to gender dysphoria, if only in some cases. We do not get that from his column, even though it is an important issue. Regardless of the problems that undeniably exist with the treatment of gender dysphoria, scientifically there is no reason to deny that gender dysphoria exists, and that gender transition (with a proper meaning of gender, namely also a legal meaning) sometimes contributes decisively to the proper resolution of gender dysphoria.
Keizer does not explicitly say that he sees this differently, but it is still unfortunate that he does not clarify this. It is a big difference whether one questions the treatment of gender dysphoria through gender transition in some cases or all cases. There are a growing number of radical voices who want to take gender transitions off the table entirely. That is a “transexclusionary” position, and one that rightfully elicits critical responses.
Leave a Reply