Garbled gender rhetoric is helping no-one – and children least of all

Such has been the success of the mainstreaming of “anti-gender” rhetoric, that when Keir Starmer said on Monday that he was “not in favour of ideology being taught in our schools on gender”, his words were reported as if their meaning was obvious.

Starmer’s remarks came in response to a question on whether he plans to scrap the Conservative government’s plans to ban schools in England from teaching about gender identity. “No” was his answer – simple enough, even if it was in direct contrast to his shadow education secretary’s response to the question the day before.

READ MORE: David Tennant in row with Kemi Badenoch after calling for her to 'shut up'

But there is nothing obvious or simple about the Tories’ – and now, apparently, Labour’s – plans to censor broad concepts in the education system, and that complexity is only underlined by Starmer’s confusion between the terms “identity” and “ideology”.

It’s evident that some of those making these promises – or threats, depending on your perspective – don’t know what they’re talking about, least of all why. Set against a global backdrop of increasingly popular far-right parties and movements which share a common thread of anti-feminist, anti-LGBTQ platforms, this ignorance by our political leaders is unforgivable.

Others – such as those within a Conservative government that has also sought to prevent young people from learning about critical race theory or the Black Lives Matter movement – doubtless know exactly what they’re doing and where it leads. But the mainstream media isn’t bothering to ask them, so I guess it’s nothing to worry about.

“Gender ideology” is a term which has become a sort of shorthand in the UK media and politics for the belief that trans people exist and that it is valid for those people to identify with the gender that feels right to them and be respected and supported to do so.

However, there is nothing in those two words that limits its scope to such a narrow definition, nor is that how the term originated or how it is often used around the world.

As feminist theory and practice developed, the term “gender ideology” was sometimes used to describe the different ideologies – or belief systems – that exist in relation to gender.

Within feminism and gender studies, there are numerous ideas and debates, but the prevailing and increasingly mainstream feminist view of gender can be simplified as the belief that a set of social “gender norms” or “stereotypes” have been used to set unfair limitations and expectations on what it means to be a man or a woman, a boy or a girl.

This includes the idea that a person’s biology is used by society to place them into a category which determines how they will be socialised, treated, and punished – depending on the circumstances – and that the way these categories have been defined and limited has led directly to the social and economic inequality of women.

This feminist perspective stands in contrast to the once-dominant ideology that all, or most, of the social differences and inequalities between men and women are biologically innate and therefore can’t be changed.

READ MORE: Young trans people in Scotland 'much less happy now than 10 years ago', survey finds

This is a viewpoint which is still supported by many religious institutions and which the male-dominated field of science sought for years to “prove”, before those theories were debunked.

Nonetheless, this is an area that remains “contested” – a word which the UK Government uses as a warning in its proposed guidance for educators.

The guidance suggests that schools should stick to the facts about “gender reassignment” (when a person changes their gender – a legally protected characteristic), but avoid the contested area of “gender identity”, although it doesn’t explain how that might be achieved.

Note that “gender identity” and “gender” are also two different – but closely related – concepts, and that some of those arguing against the former would accept the latter, while for others these are two equally nefarious ideas.

This is where the waters become so muddy. How can teachers be banned from telling pupils about (trans)gender identity, but still be able to talk about the complex topic of gender and what it means in our world? This confusion is not an accident, it’s the goal.

(Image: PA)

Over the past decade or so, the term “gender ideology” has gradually emerged in popular usage by reactionary, right-wing forces in response to progress on gender equality and LGBTQ+ rights. The phrase has been used as a catch-all to encompass anything which threatens traditional ideals of masculinity, femininity, and the nuclear family.

Fearmongering from these self-described “anti-gender” movements has frequently gone hand-in-hand with their response to economic instability and inequality, as well as numerous other apparent social ills, with claims that feminism – which has seen women enter the workforce – has led to the degradation of society and of the family.

This can be seen in places like Poland and Hungary, where the religious far-right has explicitly connected its attacks on “gender ideology” with nationalism and capitalism.

Often, the word “gender” – in its English form – is used by far-right groups to emphasise its link to western, liberal ideals which are presented as an imposition, forced onto other countries and people against their will.

Attacks on trans people have been one of the focuses of these movements, but that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

READ MORE: Why LGBT Youth Scotland is letting transgender teens tell their own stories

So to see this language used within the UK, emblazoned across mainstream media and repeated by political leaders who would present themselves as centrists, is nothing short of alarming.

The UK’s own relationship to these movements has been unusual, because much of the pushback against trans inclusion has been driven by those who identify themselves as feminists – but in so doing, those same people have increasingly found themselves allied with extremist and anti-feminist activists.

This arguably makes the situation here even harder to confront, because radically different ideologies have been meshed together under an incoherent and intangible banner described as “gender critical”.

Among those who claim that moniker are those who appear to define it in diametrically opposing ways – for some, it means being critical of the social stereotypes attached to gender (in line with a feminist perspective); for others it means being critical of the very concept of gender (in line with an anti-feminist ideology).

Oddly, those engaged in this movement show little interest in making that distinction clear, or denouncing the “allies” who will be coming for them next.

Despite all of this, the media and politicians are continuously spurring on this “debate” in a manner which conveys absolutely zero understanding of the complexity or risks involved in doing so.

If there was ever a time when our children and young people needed to be learning about contested ideas, about gender, about how ideas can take hold and govern our lives and our politics and our media, it’s now. At this rate, it’s going to take the next generation to teach us how to think critically again.