Perspective: When it comes to women’s rights, the era of ‘no debate’ is over
Within the past two weeks, we have witnessed a pair of events that could not have taken place even a year ago. Last summer, the idea that there might be a real conflict between the rights of trans-identifying persons and the rights of women could not be raised in polite liberal society. The mantra on the left had been “no debate” — meaning one could not even discuss the issue without being ostracized from that society.
That era is well over. Of course, politicians in blue and red states have certainly been having that debate for some time. In the U.S., there have been numerous bills passed — and numerous bills not passed — with regard to contentious issues such as the participation of trans-identifying persons in women’s sports, the legality of medical treatment for minors suffering from gender dysphoria, and the like.
But the lines were clearly drawn, and those few liberal politicians who crossed the line to actually wrestle with these issues were swiftly excommunicated from the good graces of their tribe. There was simply no wiggle room to be a liberal who was skeptical of the proposition that there was no conflict between trans rights and women’s rights.
But recent events suggest that “no debate” has now ended, even for the liberal wing of the political spectrum.
The New York Times, the great bastion of liberal journalism, has been gradually dipping its toe into the debate for some months now. But two weeks ago, Times columnist David French published a piece openly asserting that males should not compete in female sports. As a longtime subscriber to the Times, my guess was that the comments would largely go against French.
The Times allowed 2,045 comments to be posted before it closed the comments section. This in itself was extraordinary — around 1,500 seems to be the maximum usually allowed. It was as if a dam had finally burst. I read every single one of those comments and nearly fell off my chair to discover that around 99% of them agreed with French. Here are a few examples:
From Los Angeles: I’m a lifelong liberal. I’m all for equal justice for everyone. And that includes women! So many on the left seem to have lost sight of women’s rights. I can’t understand how this is even an issue. It is completely unjust for women.
From Oregon: My wife and I are both physicians and hard core Dems, and neither of us sees the fairness nor the appropriateness of biological men competing against biological women.
From Vermont: I am as left as they come and I do not want transwomen on women’s teams and I do not want transwomen in my locker room.
From New York: I really wish some young Democratic staffers would read the comments section of NYT. ... This is nothing short of consensus among the very liberal NYT readership, a consensus *against* the view most dem politicians currently hold. Furthermore new polls suggest the public is moving further and further *away* from the “left” position as they learn more about the issue.
The commenter from New York is right about those polls. There is less support for biological males competing in women’s sports now than there has been previously. Almost 70% of all Americans in 2023 believe that is unfair, up 7 percentage points from two years ago. In fact, the percentage of Americans who say there are only two sexes has jumped 6 percentage points since 2021 (from 59 to 65%), and that increase holds true for Democrats as well (from 38 to 44%). If there ever was a sincere consensus among the liberal end of the political spectrum on these issues, it’s clearly been shattered.
Related
It’s been shattered across the pond, too. In the United Kingdom, Parliament was forced to debate the concept of sex because over 109,000 citizens asked Parliament to clarify what British law, specifically the Labour Party-sponsored Equality Act of 2010, meant when it outlawed discrimination on the basis of sex, but preserved the right for single-sex spaces to exist “where it is a proportionate means to a legitimate aim.”
That is, does a Gender Recognition Certificate entitle one to claim to be the opposite sex —or not — for purposes of single-sex spaces?
So on June 12, the U.K. Parliament discussed sex for three hours. Again, what was noteworthy about this discussion was how many from the Labour Party — which is on the liberal end of the U.K. political spectrum — spoke up forthrightly about the conflicts they see between women’s rights and the rights of trans-identifying individuals. This is remarkable because it’s been a signature issue for Labour.
Hear the Labour Party MP from Gower, Tonia Antoniazzi, during the debate:
“(I)t was never the intention of the Act to make it difficult or impossible to have sports that are for biological females only; to protect services that are for women, such as domestic violence refuges; to assure an elderly woman or a woman getting a smear test that, when she asks for a female carer or nurse, she has the right to be treated by a biological woman; to provide single-sex spaces where women are undressing and washing; for same-sex-attracted people to have opportunities to associate with each other.”
And the Labour MP from Birmingham, Yardley, Jess Phillips, said:
“The Equality Act is a carefully balanced piece of legislation that recognizes that women and men — let us be honest, it is less men — need protection from sex discrimination. As part of that, women need to be able to have separate services, associations, charities and sports.”
And Rosie Duffield, Labour MP for Canterbury:
“Since I started speaking up, I have had so many women and men write to me to say thank you. Many have written to say that they are frightened to speak up for women’s rights. ... They include people whose jobs involve safeguarding children — headteachers, teachers and social workers.”
The consensus within the U.K.’s Labour Party is as fractured as that of the Democratic Party in the U.S. now. Such a development is to be welcomed: the United Nations’ special rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Reem Alsalem, noted in May that silencing women about their rights is not a healthy path for any nation:
“I am deeply concerned at the escalation of intimidation and threats against women and girls for expressing their opinions and beliefs regarding their needs and rights based on their sex and/or sexual orientation. . ... Women coming together to demand the respect for their needs based on their sex and/or sexual orientation have been threatened, attacked, and vilified.”
She went on: “Attempts to silence women based on the views they hold regarding the scope of gender identity and sex in law and in practice and the rights associated with these, severely affects their participation in society in dignity and in safety, as well as their country’s prosperity and development.”
Amen to that. The shattering of the silence surrounding these issues within the liberal end of the political spectrum is all to the good. How can governments expect to craft good public policy when certain issues are off-limits for discussion on ideological grounds? The end of the era of “no debate” is as welcome as it is long overdue.
Valerie M. Hudson is a university distinguished professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and a Deseret News contributor. Her views are her own.
