The phrase “post-natal people” is awkward and infuriating, but it may just mark a turning point in Britain’s difficult debate about sex, gender and trans rights. Those were the words the Royal College of Midwives used in a guide for new mothers this week. So far, so familiar: stories of organisations contorting the English language to avoid linguistically excluding transgender people have become common.
What the RCM did next was different, though. Hours after publishing that document, the college withdrew it for rewriting, with an apology for failing to say “women”. The RCM deserves credit for listening to those who worry that trans-inclusive language policies risk erasing women and their experiences. Such policies, often implemented with good intentions, have spread very quickly and with remarkably little scrutiny.
That lack of scrutiny is a problem: trans-inclusive policies drawn up and implemented without discussion or consultation can be bad for women, whose rights to their own language and spaces can be eroded. They can also be bad for trans people, since when the public eventually finds out what it all means, there’s a risk of resistance and backlash.
But I’m cautiously optimistic about the way the discussion is heading. The RCM isn’t alone. Several public bodies are quietly starting to ask if their attempts to accommodate the groups who lobby for trans rights went too far.
The head of Stonewall, the foremost of those lobbyists, has reversed some of its previous positions and said that no organisation should remove words such as “mother” to include the small group of people who give birth but don’t consider themselves female. The very fact that Nancy Kelly of Stonewall said this publicly – in an interview with Emma Barnett on Woman’s Hour – is another sign of positive change. Kelly deserves praise for finally engaging in debate here.
Previously, Stonewall was extremely successful in promoting its ideas of inclusion and its interpretation of equality law behind closed doors and without public debate. But now those ideas are being subjected to proper scrutiny – and often found wanting. Hence the growing list of big organisations stepping back from unquestioning acceptance of Stonewall’s policies and seeking ways both to include trans people and respect women’s rights.
What’s changed? The BBC’s Stephen Nolan played a part, painstakingly analysing Stonewall and its policies in a brilliant recent investigation. But it’s women who have really changed the climate. Maya Forstater, sacked for “gender critical” views, won a precedent-setting tribunal that should force employers to listen to those worried about trans orthodoxy. The utter reasonableness of philosopher Kathleen Stock, driven out of Sussex University over her views on gender, demonstrated to the public the intolerance of some trans-rights advocates.
And then there’s J K Rowling. A woman who enchanted the lives of millions of children and gives hundreds of millions of pounds to good causes now routinely receives threats of rape and death. All because she worries that policies intended to promote the interests of trans people could inadvertently undermine women’s rights and create situations that could be used by abusive men to harm women. Rowling’s story – especially her glorious refusal to be daunted – has shone much-needed sunlight on policies and practices that were conceived and born in darkness.
The outlook isn’t all positive: there are still culture warriors on both sides of this issue who want a fight, not a debate, and too many women still fear to speak openly of their concerns. But slowly and gradually, Britain is moving towards a grown-up conversation about sex and gender.
