Polio vaccine: risks and contradictions
5 November, 2024
How to handle a hotel dispute in the UK: A step-by-step guide
21 November, 2024
19 November, 2024
Recently, a rather striking debate has opened up in the UK Supreme Court: what should be the legal definition of "woman"?
This case arises from a dispute over whether a Scottish law, aiming to promote gender balance on public boards, should include trans women with a gender recognition certificate. The organisation For Women Scotland brought the matter to court, arguing that rights based on biological sex are at risk and that including trans women in this definition would harm the specific opportunities and rights of “cisgender” women—that is, non-trans or simply “women”.
The role of courts reduced to absurdity
Since when do judges have the right to decide what it means to be a woman? The question itself seems absurd, yet incredibly, today the UK Supreme Court finds itself in a position to dictate a concept so fundamental and basic to the identity of half the world’s population.
This situation is an affront to common sense and a monumental setback in respecting female autonomy. For, if a court has the authority to redefine what it means to be a woman, then what other essential aspect of human identity is exempt from judicial interpretation? How far can the system go in imposing definitions from above?
This judgement—deciding on the right of women to define themselves—turns out to be one of the most deeply patriarchal expressions possible: that a judge, or any institution, should take it upon themselves to define what it means to be a woman is, in itself, a controlling practice. It is an attempt to dictate what women are and how they should be understood.
This interference of the courts in the concept of "woman" overlooks something obvious: being a woman is a reality that doesn’t require debates or permissions, because it is a matter of biology. Plain and simple.
And yes, the debate includes a fundamental question: are we also going to debate what it means to be a "man"? Or is it only the concept of "woman" that can be manipulated, reinterpreted, and adapted to suit political or ideological conveniences? This double standard speaks volumes about how the patriarchal structure remains intact: always over the bodies and rights of women.
In the end, for a court to dictate the meaning of "woman" is not only an injustice but a reflection of how institutions continue to undermine individuals' independence and identity. Today, the judicial system claims the right to impose the definition of something that is unchangeable.
Silencing women
This debate about the definition of "woman" lies in the hands of an elite of politicians, judges, and activists who are far removed from representing the daily reality of most women. It is ironic, even insulting, that those controlling this discussion neither experience nor understand the day-to-day reality of being a woman, with its challenges, struggles, and historical rights. These are people who, from a position of power and in the name of inclusion and progress, seek to impose a definition that dilutes female identity.
In this dispute, the voices of the women who will be most affected have been minimised or ignored. There is the paradox that, in an era proclaiming the right to self-determination and where identity politics have replaced other social struggles, women are being denied the basic right to define who they are.
The reality is clear-cut: the definition of "woman" doesn’t need ambiguous interpretations or language that includes those who were not born women. Being a woman is an experience, and an identity tied to biological realities that do not apply to everyone. The definition does not, nor should it, include men under any circumstance. This manipulation of language places women in a position of constant reinterpretation and subordination to external criteria.
The contradictions of postmodernist ideologies
Today, the concept of "woman" is being subject to reinterpretation driven by postmodernist ideologies that, in the name of inclusion, seek to dilute and redefine what it means to be a woman. This ideological trend holds that gender is solely a social construct and that, therefore, anyone who so wishes can “identify” as a woman, regardless of their biology or physical reality. This stance not only ignores nature and biological facts but also deceptively conflates sex with the role we occupy in the hierarchy we know as “gender”.
The postmodernist ideology promoting these ambiguous definitions holds an essential contradiction: under the guise of inclusion, it ends up erasing the specificities of what it means to be a woman. By adopting a view where gender can be anything one chooses, it disregards the reality of women who, throughout history, have faced oppression, discrimination, and violence based precisely on their biological sex. Women do not face inequality because of a social construct; they face inequality due to physical, biological, and social realities that distinguish them and cannot be “chosen” or redefined by ideologies.
New dilemmas: gender-segregated sports categories
No one is “born trans.” Transsexuality is a construct that responds to specific contexts and, once again, serves to favor men.
This is becoming starkly evident in sports competitions. Men who self-identify as women are winning races, matches, and fights, excluding women who have trained their entire lives from qualifying positions.
The report “Violence against Women and Girls, its Causes and Consequences,” published in August 2024 and presented to the UN Assembly by Reem Alsalem, UN Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women and Girls, is damning on this front.
“The policies implemented by international federations (...) together with the national legislation of certain countries, allow males who identify as women to compete in women’s sports categories. (...) The replacement of women’s sports categories with mixed ones has led to increasing numbers of female athletes losing opportunities, such as medals, when competing against males. According to the information received, as of 30 March 2024, over 600 female athletes lost more than 890 medals across 400 competitions in 29 different sports (...) To avoid the loss of fair opportunity, males must not compete in female sports categories.”
As a rule, athletes who enter women’s categories as trans individuals typically bring a mediocre record until they complete minimal but sufficient hormone and socialization processes to be classified as “women,” thus able to break records with full institutional support.
In this new position, they gain not only recognition but also sponsorships and financial rewards. Brands, particularly those with a “woke” orientation, see in these athletes an opportunity to project an image of inclusion and progressiveness, aligning with social trends of acceptance and diversity. These sponsorships often focus on promoting the narrative that anyone should be able to compete in the category with which they identify, without considering the impacts on women.
The G7 equality ‘ministers’ (unelected people from Germany, Canada, the USA, France, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom that belong to an intergovernmental political and economic forum), who met in Italy last October, signed a joint declaration to “reaffirm the collective commitment to protect, promote, and realize the rights of all women and girls,” guaranteeing “equal opportunities for women and girls in sports activities at all levels, such as access, coaching, training, competition, pay, and prizes” and recognizing “the importance of ensuring that women’s and girls’ sports competitions are based on transparent, relevant, and scientifically grounded standards,” thus preventing a lack of fairness.
The economic roots of the gender industry
Gender identity has shifted from a human rights issue to a highly profitable market niche for pharmaceutical companies, which market hormone treatments and medications associated with transition processes, creating a steady revenue source. Biomedicine drives gender reassignment surgery and other aesthetic procedures, meeting a growing demand, while technology provides constant validation of those deep, individual “desires” and “feelings” (which cannot be debated) that we call gender identity.
This phenomenon fuels a compulsive consumption of products and services related to transitioning, based on the notion of erasing sex, suggesting that anyone can be trans.
This is reflected in the extensive work over the years by Jennifer Bilek, an American writer and activist highly critical of the gender identity industry and its connections to capitalism and biomedicine.
According to Bilek, the feminist fight for women’s rights and the denunciation of homophobia are important for understanding what is happening within the transgender sphere, but they are not the drivers of this industry. The true roots of this movement lie in a “voracious and pathological” corporate mafia, which is colonizing the last remaining areas of human life, with bodies and sexual identity as its next target.
Let’s look at some examples, laying out names and figures.
Fabrice Houdart, a former member of the World Bank and the UN, is now the managing director of Out Leadership, a global organization that promotes LGBT+ leadership within major corporations. Houdart works with more than 80 of the world’s largest companies, helping them tap into the LGBT+ market, which is estimated to be worth $3.7 trillion.
On the other hand, Todd Sears, founder of Out Leadership, created Wall Street’s first financial advisory team focused on the LGBT+ community, attracting $1.5 billion in new assets. This approach demonstrates how LGBT+ issues have shifted from solely human rights matters to immense business opportunities, driven by the world’s most powerful corporations.
Beth Brooke-Marciniak, recognized by Forbes as one of the most powerful women in the world, has invested millions in transforming inclusion and diversity departments within major corporations, such as Ernst and Young (EY). In 2016, she joined an initiative called Out WOMEN, which aims to promote LGBT+ women’s leadership in business. However, she co-chaired an event for this initiative with Martine Rothblatt, a transgender man who identifies as a woman. Once again, a trans man took on a central role that should have been reserved for a woman, echoing what happens in sports, where girls are often sidelined.
We are witnessing a commodification of the female sex and an exploitation of sexual dimorphism in favor of corporate networks and pseudo-philanthropic causes.
According to José Errasti, a writer and psychology professor and author of the essays “Nobody is Born in the Wrong Body” and “Mom, I’m Trans,” funding for trans-related issues multiplied eightfold in just the 2003-2013 period, sidelining lesbian, gay, and bisexual causes.
Errasti highlights the exponential growth of gender clinics in the United States: the first opened in Boston in 2007, and there are now over 300. These clinics offer the much-desired gender affirmation through complex, irreversible surgeries and cross-hormone treatments at increasingly younger ages. It’s unsurprising that such a profitable market has grown from €8 billion annually to more than €3 trillion in just five years.
Citing an extensive study conducted by the alliance Contra el Borrado de las Mujeres (Against the erasure of women), which draws on data from Bilek’s writings: how is it possible that gender identity ideology, which caters to the desires of only 0.1% of the population, has spread so rapidly and virally?
The answer are: money and psychopathy.
An old acquaintance, Soros’s Open Society Foundation, also financially supports organizations led by trans individuals or those advocating for the legal recognition of gender identity. Among them is Transgender Europe, comprising 140 organizations across 44 countries.
The biopharmaceutical company Gilead Sciences donates $5 million annually to associations like Transgender Day of Remembrance, which works to change laws in favor of trans ideology.
The Arcus Foundation, the largest funder of LGBT organizations in the United States, allocated $74 million to promoting gender identity ideology between 2016 and 2021 alone.
To change laws, the W. Haas Fund, led by Levi Strauss’s CEO and his wife Evelyn, provides grants to organizations that promote transgender rights, including Supreme Court litigation to expand their legal privileges. The fund allocates substantial amounts to several key entities, such as the National Center for Transgender Equality ($1,150,000), the Transgender Law Center ($1,216,000), the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, and Lambda Legal.
Funders for LGBTQ Issues, a network of over 75 foundations, corporations, and financial institutions, channels more than $100 million specifically to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer communities.
Some prominent recipients of these funds include:
- The International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, and Intersex Association (ILGA) is a global network encompassing 1,679 organizations across 162 countries, aiming to support all gender identities. ILGA exerts influence in human rights forums and international bodies like the UN.
- GATE, a consultancy supported by the Open Society, promotes “depathologization”—the removal of critical analysis regarding “trans” motivations.
- The ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) states on its website that it defends “the right of transgender people to be themselves. We are fighting against discrimination in employment, housing, and public spaces (including bathrooms) by working to add clear transgender protections to the law and filing lawsuits under existing laws.” In practice, they actively advocate for men competing in women’s sports tournaments, defending them legally when necessary.
The list goes on. The beneficiaries of this massive flow of funds uphold “gender identity” policies and perpetuate a structure that circulates staggering amounts of money, influencing politics, education, and healthcare.
Woman as an autonomous subject
Female identity is an autonomous, unique experience rooted in nature; it is a biological tangible fact and not a flexible concept that can be governed or altered by those who do not live it.
Women do not need to adapt to others' wishes or fit into moulds created to dilute their identity in the name of "inclusion" or "progress."
Defining women as autonomous subjects means recognising that their identity is not a construct that can be reinterpreted according to ideologies or trends. It is an inalienable experience, linked to a biology that no postmodern discourse, which attempts to include men or trans people (who may live in society however they wish but will never belong to a sex they weren’t born into), can erase.
Women have fought too long to now see their identity diluted or interpreted by those who do not live the female experience, and this fight for autonomy should not be taken away or limited.
