The so-called “International Bill of Gender Rights,” not recognized by the UN despite its grandiose name, is a good starting point to discuss the fact that the ideology pushed by FETAs (Female-Erasing Trans Activists) is profoundly genderist and anti-feminist in nature. Not surprisingly, it was written by two individuals who were socialized as men (one of the two, JoAnn Roberts, was a crossdresser).
Gender Identity Watch states that the goals of the IBGR are threefold:
(1) elevate a Man’s “Gender Identity” over a Woman’s Sex and Sexual Boundaries
(2) destroy Women-only space
(3) eradicate the Category of Sex.
So let’s begin:
#1: The Right To Define Gender Identity
We already start with a problematic term, “gender identity.” As I’ve already discussed, trans activists treat “gender identity” as an innate preference which causes gender expression, but how we think of ourselves is the result of our gender expression and how society reacts to it, not the cause.
As such, the emphasis by trans advocates on “gender identity,” instead of talking about gender as a social construct, is a deliberate part of trans genderism. It aims at reducing all gender issues to individual issues, and therefore to negate prejudice against women. The term “cis privilege” fulfills that function as well, in positing that female women have privilege over male women by virtue of being female. But this is false: being identified as female means you are subject to more violence, abuse, repressive laws and ideological attacks around the world.
At any rate, let’s examine this first “right”:
#1: The Right To Define Gender Identity
All human beings carry within themselves an ever-unfolding idea of who they are and what they are capable of achieving. The individual’s sense of self is not determined by chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role. Thus, the individual’s identity and capabilities cannot be circumscribed by what society deems to be masculine or feminine behavior. It is fundamental that individuals have the right to define, and to redefine as their lives unfold, their own gender identities, without regard to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
I must point out again that this is absolutely backwards. Somehow we’re supposed to believe that not only our “gender identity” but our entire sense of self is “not determined by chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role”? That is incredibly silly. Of course all of these things have a profound influence on our sense of self and cannot be dissociated from it.
More importantly, there appears to be no connection whatsoever between this statement and the rest of the point, despite the use of the word “thus.” How does a deep connection between the sense of self and one’s sex mean that we should circumscribe every individual into “masculine” or “feminine” gender boxes?
Keep in mind that this document was created and revised over a period of years, so it’s reasonable to assume that nothing written here is accidental. Feminists emphasize the importance of sex as a real biological feature and the constructed nature of gender. This goes counter to the interest of FETAs, so they downplay sex as a way to reinforce the importance of gender. Their aim is to erase the existence of biological prejudice because, again, they want to make us believe that female women are not punished for their femaleness.
Can one’s “gender identity” be changed as much as one desires? Sure, but how is that a human right? This obviously has nothing to do with individuals, and all about pushing a specific genderist view.
#2: The Right to Free Expression of Gender Identity
Given the right to define one’s own gender identity, all human beings have the corresponding right to free expression of their self-defined gender identity.
Therefore, all human beings have the right to free expression of their self-defined gender identity; and further, no individual shall be denied Human or Civil Rights by virtue of the expression of a self-defined gender identity.
At the risk of repeating myself, I have to point out the reversal again: it is assumed that “gender identity” becomes “gender expression” when it is, well, expressed, but this is backwards. Any “right to free expression” is pointless if the way we feel about ourselves was conditioned by other people’s approval or disapproval.
But as long as gender exists, we will be conditioned to see ourselves through that lens. FETAs will not, and cannot, acknowledge that fact. Therefore they must evade it as much as they can.
Children should have the right to not be subjected to gender. That would be a real right. FETAs are not going to fight for that, because it would mean the end of their ideology (see point 5).
#3: The Right to Secure and Retain Employment and to Receive Just Compensation
Given the economic structure of modern society, all human beings have a right to train for and to pursue an occupation or profession as a means of providing shelter, sustenance, and the necessities and bounty of life, for themselves and for those dependent upon them; further, all human beings have the right to secure and retain employment and to receive just compensation for their labor regardless of gender identity, chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
There is nothing objectionable about this particular point, so I will not belabor it. It is the first point in this “bill of rights” that actually addresses an issue of importance to individuals, instead of making an ideological polemic.
But don’t assume it’s all going to be this helpful from this point forward. In fact, the next point is the big one:
#4: The Right of Access to Gendered Space and Participation in Gendered Activity
Given the right to define one’s own gender identity and the corresponding right to free expression of a self-defined gender identity, no individual should be denied access to a space or denied participation in an activity by virtue of a self-defined gender identity which is not in accord with chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
Therefore, no individual shall be denied access to a space or denied participation in an activity by virtue of a self-defined gender identity which is not in accord with chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
This is the most direct and eloquent statement demonstrating that FETA is anti-feminism. Historically, feminism has only been able to flourish when women-only spaces were available. If FETAs win, and women-only spaces are abolished by law, then any possibility of furthering women’s rights will be legally eradicated.
That being said, the point is also a misrepresentation of the feminist argument for women-only spaces. They do not seek to deny transwomen access to women-only spaces on the basis of “self-defined gender identity.” They couldn’t care less what your “self-defined gender identity” is. They object because transwomen were socialized as men, and therefore continue to behave as men.
They try to make the issue of women-only spaces as an issue of bigotry. But there is no bigotry there: transwomen are free to associate with each other, and they are free to associate with women in public as long as those women allow them to do so, like anyone else. But people socialized as men feel entitled to be in any space they want. Transwomen were socialized as men and act like men. They make threats, they intimidate, and they crowd everyone else out.
Everyone should have the right to associate with whoever they want in their personal lives (not talking about serving customers in a business or professional setting, which is a wholly different matter). The “right” to bully people into accepting them is not a right.
#5: The Right to Control and Change One’s Own Body
All human beings have the right to control their bodies, which includes the right to change their bodies cosmetically, chemically, or surgically, so as to express a self-defined gender identity.
Therefore, individuals shall not be denied the right to change their bodies as a means of expressing a self-defined gender identity; and further, individuals shall not be denied Human or Civil Rights on the basis that they have changed their bodies cosmetically, chemically, or surgically, or desire to do so as a means of expressing a self-defined gender identity.
Taken as it is, this seems to be a good solid point which can be applied universally, like point 3. But we know what FETAs are referring to here: they are referring to the coercive practice of gender reassignment in little children, including the use of untested chemicals in order to block puberty and surgery to “change gender.”
In short, this “right” is really there to defend the “right” to abuse one’s children because they exhibit signs of gender rebellion. This highly unethical, quack practice based on a failed treatment (we can say this with certainty given the percentage of transgender people who commit suicide or detransition/desire detransition) should be illegal and met with public resistance.
The next point concerns medical treatments and is an extension of this one: therefore the same objection applies. So I will continue on:
#7: The Right to Freedom From Involuntary Psychiatric Diagnosis and Treatment
Given the right to define one’s own gender identity, individuals should not be subject to involuntary psychiatric diagnosis or treatment.
Therefore, individuals shall not be subject to involuntary psychiatric diagnosis or treatment as mentally disordered, dysphoric, or diseased, on the basis of a self-defined gender identity or the expression thereof.
There is a huge bait and switch here. If you don’t pay attention, this point seems like a pretty obvious statement that people shouldn’t be coercively committed, something no one would disagree with. But there are two specific words that telegraph what the objective of this point is: “diagnosis” and “dysphoric.”
Some transgender people see themselves as dysphoric (that they are in the “wrong body”) and are diagnosed as such, other transgender people become such because they fetishize gender (and in the case of transwomen, they fetishize women’s oppression, as most men do). I mentioned in the beginning that JoAnn Roberts was a crossdresser. I did not mention this out of spite, but to demonstrate that the objective of these people is not to help dysphoric people who genuinely need medical help but to turn gender into a fetish (which is what crossdressing is), to trivialize the objectification and subjection of women and turn it into their personal masquerade. This is not only callous but also obviously anti-feminist.
What is asked of us here is to refuse to diagnose transgender people, which means to treat gender fetishists on the same plane as dysphoric individuals and to grant them the same access to medical services. This is profoundly wrong.
#8: The Right to Sexual Expression
Given the right to a self-defined gender identity, every consenting adult has a corresponding right to free sexual expression.
Therefore, no individual’s Human or Civil Rights shall be denied on the basis of sexual orientation; and further, no individual shall be denied Human or Civil Rights for expression of a self-defined gender identity through private sexual acts between consenting adults.
The first sentence has two parts which, again, do not follow. How does the “right” to gender identity entail the right to sexual expression? You can’t translate a right to a thought to a right to an action. It would have been simpler to skip the first half of the sentence and assert the right to free sexual expression.
But either way, it simply has no place in a “bill of gender rights.” Connecting gender to sexual expression is simply offensive. People can be of any sexual orientation regardless of gender, and gender should have nothing to do with it (unfortunately, since gender roles include sexual roles, it has plenty to do with it).
#9: The Right to Form Committed, Loving Relationships and Enter Into Marital Contracts
Given that all human beings have the right to free expression of self-defined gender identities, and the right to sexual expression as a form of gender expression, all human beings have a corresponding right to form committed, loving relationships with one another, and to enter into marital contracts, regardless of their own or their partner’s chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role.
Therefore, individuals shall not be denied the right to form committed, loving relationships with one another or to enter into marital contracts by virtue of their own or their partner’s chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role, or on the basis of their expression of a self-defined gender identity.
There is no such thing as a “right to marriage” because marriage is the creation of new members of a privileged class. There can be no more “right to marriage” than there can be a right to punch people in the face. But marriage has a powerful propaganda effect, which is why it’s so important for minority groups. I do not blame such groups for such propaganda actions. But let’s not fool each other and call it a right.
I have nothing against the point that’s specific to FETAs. In pursuing marriage as a high and noble goal, they are no different than other genderists.
#10: The Right to Conceive, Bear, or Adopt Children; The Right to Nurture and Have Custody of Children and to Exercise Parental Capacity
Given the right to form a committed, loving relationship with another, and to enter into marital contracts, together with the right to express a self-defined gender identity and the right to sexual expression, individuals have a corresponding right to conceive and bear children, to adopt children, to nurture children, to have custody of children, and to exercise parental capacity with respect to children, natural or adopted, without regard to chromosomal sex, genitalia, assigned birth sex, or initial gender role, or by virtue of a self-defined gender identity or the expression thereof.
Apart from the clusterfuck of misrepresentations and errors summarized in the first half of the sentence, and the fact that I am an antinatalist and therefore absolutely and categorically reject any notion of “right to conceive children,” I find nothing else that’s wrong with this point. So this is at least half decent. If only the rest was at least this good…
What in the hell do having children or employment have to do with “gender rights”? If the intent of this “bill of gender rights” was to list human rights and to tack on “regardless of gender identity,” then it is, at best, a rehashing of existing human rights declarations. The reality is, this document is a mix of (mostly dubious) rights with “gender identity” tacked on and FETA propaganda poorly disguised as rights.
Let’s agree at least that the document is badly named. This is not about “gender rights” and cannot have anything to do with “gender rights.” The notion itself is absurd: gender is not a freedom, it is a duty imposed. Gender does not have rights, it has obligations. The concept of a “gender right” is a contradiction in terms.
Gender is a hierarchy and, as for all other hierarchies, the only right we should have is to be free of it. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a depraved fool.