[AGTRT-BF33] Feminists and transwomen are allies rather than enemies: a rebuttal to Caroline Franssen of VOORZIJ

Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team

In late November, we clashed with the feminists of VOORZIJ for being critical of their intolerant and unscientific position on transgender persons, especially trans women (see AGTRT-BF23, AGTRT-BF24 and AGTRT-BF28). Our conclusion was that while FORSY opposes the label TERF (Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist, or anti-trans-feminists), we believe that label is really justifiable.

On LinkedIn, the founder of VOORZIJ, Caroline Franssen, recently provided a rebuttal to our analyses, which we are happy to respond to in this blog. Below we repeat the entire text of her rejoinder (see the colored boxes), with our comments thereon in between (always preceded by JB & LB).

Women have limits

I am one of the “radical feminists” Buijs talks about below.

JB & LB: Indeed.

I stand up for women’s rights to their own sports, women’s toilets and locker rooms and for women’s prisons without men.

For fear of being thrown off LinkedIn here because of my views, I have posted only sporadically about my efforts for women’s rights until now. But I don’t want to be silenced anymore and will speak out very clearly this time.

JB & LB: We don’t muzzle anyone, we can’t and we don’t want to.

Humans are mammals. Mammals cannot change sex. All the cells in their bodies are XX or XY. A man cannot become a woman.

JB & LB: Surely that really depends on your definition of male and female. Our definition of man (woman) is as follows:

A man (woman) is an adult person of male (female) formal gender.

We do not claim that everyone adheres or should adhere to this definition, but we do claim that this idea (this definition) is in the middle of the debate, and not on the extreme sides of the debate. Our definition differs greatly from the following definition that has now unfortunately come into vogue in woke circles and radical transactivism:

A man (woman) is an adult person who sees himself or herself as a man (woman).

This second definition is behind the proposal for the new transgender law and is also in a German bill now in play and was recently accepted by parliament in Scotland (but it has not yet passed in London). This is something we ourselves are critical of: we call this gender-co-essentialism, and we believe this is just as much an extreme and unscientific position (see AGTRT- BEF12 and AGTRT-BF16).

Criticism of radical transactivism, however, is perfectly fine without falling back on the old-fashioned and extreme gender essentialism of the feminists of the VOORZIJ Foundation. They define male and female only biologically and binary, and completely deny the existence of transgender and intersex persons.

In this way, the shared interests of feminists and trans women fade into the background while differences are magnified. It is precisely because extremism is always fought with extremism in the transgender debate that there is further and further polarization.

At most, he can pretend to be a woman.

Laurens may choose to see a trans identified man as a woman. Forcing this belief on others, is disrespectful and imperialistic.

JB & LB: We wouldn’t know where that happens. We attempt to come up with a MotR(middle of the road) gender theory that can ultimately provide a compromise between the extreme positions (see AGTRT-BF21 and AGTRT-BF32).

In my view, there is no way a man can become a woman. Not by feeling that he is a woman, nor with surgeries and hormones.

A man without a penis is still a man. A man on estrogen is still a man. A eunuch is a man and not a woman.

JB & LB: Caroline Franssen is a gender essentialist and 100% so. That is far from unique, but repeating the same phrases over and over does not make that position stronger. Nor weaker, it doesn’t matter. If she were interested in the literature, she would connect with the positions that appear in the gender debate. Then you don’t have to keep harping on the same points.

And well, you can see it that way, but then we are 100% justified in classifying Caroline Franssen as a TERF(Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist). A feminist by the looks of it, she is also quite radical and pertinently anti-trans in our experience.

And women have rights based on our gender. These protect our dignity, privacy and security.

JA & LB: Not in the least, those rights are based on gender as it appears in a passport (which we call formal gender, to avoid confusion with social gender, psychological gender and biological gender).

No woman needs to allow a man who “feels like a woman” into her dressing room, bedroom or sports. Not when he still has his “pouch” and only “feels like a woman” nor when he has had surgery.

We don’t have to play along in his story. Once a man, always a man.

Indeed, as women, we have a right to self-determination and a right to our own boundaries. We fought hard for that.

JB & LB: The classic TERF argument, please admit it, and don’t pretend you guys are sitting around thinking this up yourselves!

We don’t want men in stay-at-home houses, breast cancer groups and lesbian parties.

JB & LB: Persons of male biological sex can also get breast cancer, but that aside.

It is completely unscientific to insist that women drop their boundaries in favor of men.

JB & LB: And have you even looked at the scientific literature describing how and why you might see it exactly that way?

By the way, Lydia Daniel and I interviewed Laurens Buijs this summer for our podcast Two Peas in a Pod. Then he started writing hateful things about me on his blog.

JB & LB: We see something different, we see you writing negatively about LB just because he doesn’t agree with you completely.


Comments

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *