{"id":8924,"date":"2024-04-05T11:32:13","date_gmt":"2024-04-05T09:32:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/2024\/04\/05\/agtrt-bdf72-d66s-striking-arrogance-on-gender-theory\/"},"modified":"2024-05-05T10:58:47","modified_gmt":"2024-05-05T08:58:47","slug":"agtrt-bdf72-d66s-striking-arrogance-on-gender-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/2024\/04\/05\/agtrt-bdf72-d66s-striking-arrogance-on-gender-theory\/","title":{"rendered":"[AGTRT-BF72] D66’s striking arrogance on gender theory"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Jan Bergstra & Laurens BuijsAmsterdam Gender Theory Research Team<\/strong><\/p>\n\n

In recent days, NSC, through NSC MP Nicolien van Vroonhoven, has proposed withdrawing the proposal for the new transgender law. We welcome that. While it is true that a new law is certainly useful and necessary (see AGTRT-BF18<\/a>), the current bill is too co-essentialist<\/em>. In other words, the bill does not distinguish between gender identity and gender categorization (see also gender-theory.org\/<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n

Immediately from the corner of D66 came a response through MP Joost Sneller. We quote here a comment attributed to Joost Sneller by the AD<\/a>:<\/p>\n\n

“The Lower House may be taking a conservative turn, abandoning the pursuit of individual freedom characteristic of the Netherlands. Apparently, the rights of all Dutch citizens are no longer guaranteed.”<\/em><\/p>\n\n

We see this position as a textbook example of the pedantic arrogance<\/a> that D66 speaks of in its recent self-study. Could it perhaps be that the bill is not as progressive as thought, that there is something to criticize and that this bill is being rejected precisely because, as it is currently worded, it expressly fails to secure the rights of all Dutch citizens?<\/p>\n\n

How is it possible that D66 does not consider it worth a second of reflection time to finally also take note of the arguments raised against the bill? To dismiss those arguments as ghost stories is insufficient.<\/p>\n\n

We come up with the following hypotheses:<\/p>\n\n

    \n
  1. In D66 at the moment, we do not see anyone (with any influence) who has properly reviewed the literature on gender theory.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
      \n
    1. D66 does not have the honesty to really defend the problematic (co-essentialist) position they hold. By this we mean not using terms such as progressive, progressive and modern, but using the arguments that are prevalent in the literature on gender now, and being mindful of the divergences that occur in the literature and thoughtfully relating to them.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
        \n
      1. D66 states far too easily in its recent self-study that the party sees things well but does not bring them well. But the party sometimes does not see things right at all, and that is no disgrace, but not to keep that possibility open is “a bit silly” (to speak with our queen).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n
          \n
        1. D66 would do well to work with NSC now on a new transgender law and not think too easily that the party is too progressive for that, because that is nonsense. The time of one-dimensional progressive politics is behind us; problems have become too complex for that.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n

          Read more about the need for a new transgender law that gets things right without dogma:<\/em>A new transgender law is indeed needed<\/a><\/p>\n\n

          The AD piece goes on to say that under current law, anyone who wants to make a gender transition at the marital registry must speak with a doctor, and D66 says that should remain the case. We think this will change over time. In AGTRT-BF32<\/a>, we outlined what a MotR approach to gender theory might look like, and in that proposal, while there is expert assessment of transition needs, that input is not primarily medical in nature.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

          Jan Bergstra & Laurens BuijsAmsterdam Gender Theory Research Team In recent days, NSC, through NSC MP Nicolien van Vroonhoven, has proposed withdrawing the proposal for the new transgender law. We welcome that. While it is true that a new law is certainly useful and necessary (see AGTRT-BF18), the current bill is too co-essentialist. In other […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":94225296,"featured_media":6709,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"activitypub_content_warning":"","activitypub_content_visibility":"","activitypub_max_image_attachments":4,"activitypub_interaction_policy_quote":"anyone","activitypub_status":"federate","footnotes":""},"categories":[770841050],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8924","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-formal-gender-theory-en"],"rttpg_featured_image_url":{"full":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",1152,864,false],"landscape":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",1152,864,false],"portraits":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",1152,864,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",150,113,false],"medium":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",300,225,false],"large":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",1024,768,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",1152,864,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/04\/d75e1-img_7933-1.jpg",1152,864,false]},"rttpg_author":{"display_name":"Laurens Buijs","author_link":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/author\/laurensjanbuijs\/"},"rttpg_comment":0,"rttpg_category":"Formal Gender Theory<\/a>","rttpg_excerpt":"Jan Bergstra & Laurens BuijsAmsterdam Gender Theory Research Team In recent days, NSC, through NSC MP Nicolien van Vroonhoven, has proposed withdrawing the proposal for the new transgender law. We welcome that. While it is true that a new law is certainly useful and necessary (see AGTRT-BF18), the current bill is too co-essentialist. In other…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8924","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/94225296"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8924"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8924\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9263,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8924\/revisions\/9263"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/6709"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8924"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8924"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gender-theory.org\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8924"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}