[AGTRT-BF45] Battle exchange between Sunak and Starmer over “what is a woman?”

Jan Bergstra & Laurens Buijs
Amsterdam Gender Theory Research Team

Last week, gender theory hit the news in the United Kingdom once again, with the remarkable accusation by PM Rishi Sunak that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer would not even be able to define what a woman is.

Starmer would now believe that in some cases (less than 0.1% that is) gender transition should be possible without the usual medical and pharmaceutical interventions having preceded it. Sunak sees in this a change in direction from an earlier position of Starmer concerns, and he believes this is a change in direction that fits into a pattern of changes in direction by Starmer. In the language of our formal gender theory, Starmer would move increasingly toward the latter (“woke”) side on the scale from essentialism to co-essentialism.

The issue is greatly magnified emotionally by a connection (explained differently by Sunak and Starmer) to the recent murder of a young trans woman.

How can we make sense of the situation in the UK, using the concepts of our formal gender theory?

1. Both Sunak and Starmer accept gender transition based on a concept of bodily gender. This then usually requires prior medical intervention. They are thus at a great distance from TERF ideology and from TEFC ideology. Both reject gender essentialism. (For these issues, see our blogs AGTRT-BF43 and AGTRT-BF44).
2. Both Sunak and Starmer reject gender-co-essentialism (they both believe that gender cannot be determined solely on the basis of gender self-identification). In doing so, it is dismissive of proposals for new legislation such as in Scotland (approved there by the Scottish Parliament, but still awaiting approval from London), Germany and the Netherlands in which gender identity acts as a unique and decisive criterion for allowing gender transition.
3. Starmer is more liberal than Sunak in that he wants to allow gender transition in more cases. Either on the spectrum from essentialist to co-essentialist, Sunak is slightly more on the essentialist side than Starmer.
4. We see Sunak’s position as neither a MotR position (not middle of the road) nor a moderate position (see AGTRT-BF34).
5. We agree with Starmer that Sunak’s position on the permissibility of gender transition is in some cases too rigid (i.e., too restrictive).
6. In terms of ICE (incremental concept engineering, see AGTRT-BF38), Sunak and Starmer are at a different point. Clearly, Starmer’s definition of a woman must appeal to a “concept of gender” that is the result of concept engineering and for that reason cannot be explained in a single sentence. This leaves Starmer vulnerable to attacks from Sunak, who can invoke a long tradition of gender transition understood in terms of bodily gender.
7. But by the looks of it, it was not very wise of Sunak to make his comments about Starmer with the mother of the murdered trans woman on the stand. There is also no connection between those cases, but the impression could be given that Sunak doubted the transwoman status of the murdered person. The very fact that that question lingers is problematic.

Thinking in terms of ICE (incremental concept engineering for gender) provides a better understanding of the situation in the UK. At least four notions of gender simultaneously play a role in the debate there.

Interestingly, Sunak seems to put forward the obviousness of one’s own position as an argument. Anyone who does not see it the same way is “stupid” so to speak. So do the supporters of TERF ideology and TEFC ideology in, but for a completely different concept of gender. Someday the time will come when Sunak, TERF ideologues and TEFC ideologues will also study the literature on gender theory only to see that the issues in gender theory are by no means self-evident, and thus “one’s own rightness” is also not a foregone conclusion.