MARTIN BUREAU/AFP/Getty
Show Hide image

The battle over gender: what makes you a man or a woman, anyway?

Adrian Dalton, Julie Bindel, Bethany Black and Gia Milinovich discuss the controversial issue.

What does it mean to be male or female, a man or a woman? The idea of gender has become a battleground, with scientists, philosophers, writers and activists clashing over its definition, and even its usefulness as a category at all. Where is the line where "man" becomes "woman", and vice versa - is it to do with having the "right" genitals, or a particular kind of brain? Are people who want to transition from one gender to another re-inforcing the idea that there are fundamental differences between the two? Are there fundamental differences between the two? 

On 24 September, the Soho Skeptics group (full disclosure: convened by NS blogger Martin Robbins) is hosting a debate on the subject, featuring trans activists Adrian Dalton and Bethany Black, feminist campaigner and writer Julie Bindel, and "science groupie and professional dork" Gia Milinovich. The event is controversial - Bindel recently withdrew from a university debate on prostitution after receiving threats related to her stance on transgender issues - but the question it is asking is vital to anyone with an interest in feminism or trans rights. What makes you a man or a woman, anyway?

I asked the four panellists for their response, along with a few other questions. 

 

Adrian Dalton

You were born female but are now male-bodied. How is it different when you perform as a drag queen now, to the experience of presenting as female before you transitioned?

In some respects there is very little difference. I did feel like I was in drag during my early twenties (pre-transition). In fact for a time I tried to pass as a drag queen by wearing really OTT wigs, outrageous clothes and loads of make-up. I suppose the key difference is that now I am in the body I feel at home in. Also, when I’m doing drag now people don’t generally perceive me as female. 

How do you feel about the phrase “born in the wrong body”?

In one sense I relate to it. But I have really enjoyed my life and the whole journey would have been different without the experience of being born in a female body and then transitioning. So I don’t regret having this experience.

Do you think there is such a thing as a “male brain” and “female brain”?

No idea! I’m a drag queen pole-dancer, not a scientist!

What does being a man mean to you?

Well, although my body is male there is very little else about me that is remotely masculine . . . so err, I’m just going to have to say being a man to me is simply having a male gender identity.  In my case I am also only comfortable in a male body.

 

Bethany Black

How differently are you treated now that you are a woman from when you were considered male?

Wow, there's a whole book in answer to this question,  I think the first thing that was noticeable was that overnight people stopped automatically assuming that I was right about stuff, my factual advice was treated as suspect, whereas emotional advice was taken more seriously. People also seemed to not be able to tell when I was joking as quickly, there was an expectation that I would be serious, that any sarcasm, or pretending not to get something for comic effect was me actually not getting things.

The pressures to behave were changed, before I transitioned I was very skinny and I remember my mum telling me that I needed to bulk up because "what if you were on a bus and a woman got on with a baby, you'd need to be able to help her with her pram, what sort of a man wouldn't be strong enough to do that?" as soon as I transitioned it was suddenly not an issue.  

Although I'm a lesbian when I first transitioned I thought I might be bisexual, so I did spend some time in heterosexual courting situations and I noticed that there was suddenly a pressure on me that even if I didn't feel attracted to a guy that the pressure was on me, that there was a level of expectation and entitlement from guys who wanted to sleep with me.

I also see it every day in conversations with people, guys will suddenly talk over me or interrupt in the middle of a story and think nothing of it and other people will automatically assume that they have more of a right to speak than I do.

I think the worst of this is having to deal with the "I'm a nice guy, but I think feminism's gone too far" guys who will totally disregard any experiences I have and accuse me of being paranoid, of over reacting or being too emotional in my responses to people's criticisms of me.

How do you feel about the phrase “born in the wrong body”?

I hate that phrase,  I wasn't born in the wrong body, I was born with the wrong genitals. That's all, my body is fine, though it could do with more exercise and a few less pies,  The way I see it I had a birth defect that I got sorted with surgery and medication. My partner, she was born in the wrong body, she was born into a body with auto immune diseases, and it's difficult to share a body with type one diabetes. People feel quite okay with saying that about trans people, but you'd never say that to someone who was disabled.

What does being a woman mean to you?

I have no idea.  I have nothing to compare it to. Growing up I felt I didn't relate to parts of my body so that's why from the age of 11 I didn't like to be naked at all even on my own I'd get changed under my bedclothes and have the quickest showers possible. So like the previous question I wouldn't say I was born in the wrong body, it's like the phrase "you were born a man".  I wasn't, I was born a baby, my parents were convinced that I'd be a boy, and it just took me 20 years to pluck up the courage to tell them. I think one of the biggest misnomers that's perpetuated by the press is the idea that for transsexuals we are transitioning into something. "You were a man and now you're a woman."  like this idea that "Little Johnny was bouncing along happy being a boy when he decided that he really wanted to be a girl so he started wearing dresses and make up and then he had surgery and became a woman." 

A simple turn around of language recently when Chelsea Manning came out would have helped - rather than "Manning wants to be a woman",  "Manning is actually a woman" would have been a lot more accurate. I was born female; it's just doctors judge you on your genitals when they're writing your birth certificate.

I am one version of being a woman out of three billion versions, and this version was born with a penis, and so far has ended up as a butch lesbian.

Do you think there is such a thing as a “male brain” and a “female brain”?

There are certainly physical differences in the brains of men and women, however I think a lot of it comes down to social pressures and I don't think that the stereotypical markers of gender behaviour are markers of being male or female, because there are as many ways of being male or female or both or neither as there are people.  Having said that, as a gay woman I often watch heterosexual people's interactions with each other and it's very confusing quite how strict the gender roles seem to be, even in the most progressive of them.  But I would assume that that would be down to social pressures to conform as opposed to any real differences in brain sex.

 

Julie Bindel

Do you think there is such a thing as a “male brain” and a “female brain”?

Although there are obvious physical and hormonal differences between men and women, biology is certainly not destiny. The risible notion that there is a "male" and "female" brain - not scientifically proven by any means - helps reinforce the notion that difference is innate and cannot be explained by sexism and social construction/the environment in which we live.

Behavioural differences can be explained by patriarchy and power differences. Girls are raised to adhere to strict codes of convention, and "femininity" can only exist in relation and opposition to "masculinity". Although both boys and girls are deeply affected by gender rules and stereotypes, they benefit males and harm females. Scientists looking for brain differences do so to back up the status quo. The likes of Cordelia Fine and other feminist scientists are beginning to offer a robust challenge to their nonsense. 

What does being a woman mean to you?

I have no idea what it feels like to be a woman. I don't do gender. It is harmful and a total social construct that serves to reinforce patriarchy and women's subordination to men.

I wish to eradicate gender - that is the feminist goal - but for now we need to keep the identity of "female" in order to track how our oppression is effecting us, for example, how many women are raped, underpaid, killed by violent partners etc

 

Gia Milinovich

What are the problems with scientific research into sex and gender?

One of the main issues with psychology research is that it often involves self-reported answers on questionnaires, that is when the respondent answers questions about thoughts, feeling, beliefs without any interferences from the researcher. The problem with this is, of course, that the respondent may exaggerate or minimise their behaviour, feelings or beliefs for a wide variety of reasons, even subconsciously, therefore the researcher isn't getting accurate information.

There is a lot of research showing that both males and females self-stereotype themselves when they know what is being researched. For example, when respondents know that they are answering questions to measure empathy (such as with Simon Baron Cohen's Empathy Quotient test) women's self-reported levels of empathy will be high because women are expected by society to be more empathic than men. Research by psychologists Nancy Eisenberg and Randy Lennon found that: "In general, sex differences in empathy were found to be a function of the methods used to assess empathy. There was a large sex difference favoring women when the measure of empathy was self-report scales; and no sex differences were evident when the measure of empathy was either physiological or unobtrusive observations of nonverbal reactions to another's emotional state." 

In other words, the differences between males and females found in a lot of psychology research may be more about how they would like to be seen by others rather than about any true, innate differences.

There is also some question over what information can accurately be gleaned by neuroimaging. Most neuroimaging research has been done on adults and as we know the brain is shaped because of repeated actions or behaviours. An example of this is the research that came out of University College London a few years ago which had scanned trainee taxi drivers' brains before they started The Knowledge and again after. They found that the hippocampus, the area of the brain involved in memory, had grown in the trainees that had passed the test, but not in those who failed. Now had they done MRIs only after they'd passed the test, researchers might have concluded that their hippocampus was naturally larger and therefore they had a genetic predisposition to having a good enough memory to pass the test. As it is, one can't tell anything about those who passed other than their brains grew.

The same could be the case with neuroimaging looking for differences between the sexes. As research shows, from immediately after birth male and female children are treated differently by not only their parents but by other children, teachers, strangers, everyone. A lifetime of this gendered treatment is bound to cause different behaviours and therefore differences in brain patterns.

Brain scans of newborns, however, have shown that there is very little difference between male and female brains at birth.

What does being a woman mean to you?

I've thought about this a lot recently specifically because of this panel discussion.

I don't feel I have ever conformed to the "feminine gender role". There has always been a disconnect between who I feel I am inside, which is simply "a person", and who the outside world expects me to be because of my female body. I have always fought against the roles that have been forced upon me, as have most of the women I know. And yet, I am still "a woman".

My biology is very important. My period, my menarche, the supposed shame of menstruating, hormonal fluctuations every month are important. My menopause will be equally as important. The spectre of pregnancy is important. Being pregnant and giving birth were important. My (dysfunctional) relationship with my body is important. Sexual harassment and assault and the constant risk assessment to avoid them are important. Not being successful at avoiding either of them is important. Male violence, control and power being used against me is important. Being treated as inferior by the vast majority of males I've come in contact with is important. Doing so much more work for so much less money is important...

For me, it seems to be a combination of my biology and the way I am treated by wider society that make me "a woman".

What is the fundamental question at the heart of this which arouses so much hostility?

I am an outsider to all of this I can only say what I think based on my observations of the "discussions" between trans* activists and radical feminists and my understanding of their respective positions.

The trans* community as a whole is a victim of high rates of violence, depression and suicide. Many of them, rightly, feel they are literally fighting for their lives. Recent years have seen laws enacted around the world giving transgender people more and more legal protections from the bigotry, hate and violence they face on a daily basis. In the UK, recent additions to the Criminal Justice Act 2003 have provided transgender people with protected class status and the Gender Recognition Act 2004 entitles them to the legal recognition of their gender identity without requiring any gender reassignment treatment, it only requires a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.

For radical feminists, the concept of "gender identity" is nonsensical, as they believe gender- the roles, activities, behaviours and even clothing that are considered acceptable for males and females- is socially constructed. Subsequently, they question what it means for a person born male to "live as a woman". Does it mean having long hair  or wearing make-up and dresses? Does it mean wearing trousers and sensible shoes? Does it mean having a female name? Could you be called Jo, Alex, Kris, Jamie, Terry, Pat? Does it mean being bad at maths or great at computer coding? Does it mean being a good communicator or interested in DIY? Does it mean being good at sport or bad at sport? Does it mean being "a stereotype"? And if it doesn't require sex reassignment surgery to legally be recognised as a woman does that mean people with penises are women? And if so, why are females the only oppressed class who are legally unable to define themselves?

And this final point, I think, might be at the heart of it. On the one hand, radical feminists can come across as a bit like out-of-touch Middle Englanders who complain about immigrants coming in and changing what it means to be British. On the other hand, females are without a doubt an oppressed class and people perceived to be from a privileged class are "invading" and "colonising" and telling females that everything they know about being women is wrong. And when they are shouted at, threatened and told to shut up and accept it, it can cause a great amount of hostility.

I have seen both radical feminists and trans* activists behaving appallingly to each other. From what I have observed over the past 9 months, there is a lot more violent language coming from the trans* camp, and there is more taunting, name-calling and ridicule coming from the radical feminist camp.

Do you think there is such a thing as a “male brain” and a “female brain”?

I think there are innate differences between individuals, but no innate differences between the sexes. 

Soho Skeptics: The Battle over Gender is on 24 September. It is now sold out.

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Paul Farrelly
Show Hide image

I represent a Leave constituency - but I want to delay triggering Brexit

Unlike most of his colleagues, Labour MP Paul Farrelly refused to vote for starting Brexit negotiations in March. He explains why. 

Not quite top marks, but eight out of 11 will do - for the justices on the United Kingdom Supreme Court, who have ruled that our country remains, indeed, a parliamentary democracy. 

Furthermore, they have ruled that legislation is necessary to trigger Article 50, which starts the Brexit process, not simply a plebiscite, nor a government diktat fancifully dressed up as a "royal prerogative".

Last June, my constituency of Newcastle-under-Lyme in the area home to the historic potteries industry voted 61 per cent to 39 per cent to leave the European Union. Yet in December, I was one of just nine Labour MPs to vote - twice - against rushing for the door by the end of March, come what may.

It was the third time since 2015 that I’d defied the Labour whip (quite modest compared with our leader’s record). The last was when - with the Tories’ true statesman, Ken Clarke - I refused to vote for the legislation paving the way for the referendum in the first place. 

I thought it a reckless gamble with our country’s future, which profoundly disregarded the lessons of the past. Six months down the line, I now realise that, of the "December nine", I was the only one with a Leave majority (though not a majority of all voters) in my seat.

Why? Was it a political death wish? A deliberate slap in the face for my electorate, who have returned a Labour MP now since 1919?

No, it simply made no coherent sense to hand the government a blank cheque before Christmas, before we'd seen what Prime Minister Theresa May wanted to achieve, and given our verdict in the national interest. 

Does that make me – like the judges again, no doubt, according to Ukip, some Tories and the Brexit press - an "enemy of the people"? Certainly not. 

My parliamentary next door neighbour Sir Bill Cash, doyen of the anti-EU lobby, has spent the last 40 years defying the "will of the people" from the overwhelming 1970s referendum. So I think we "rebels" can be cut a little slack for wanting to ask a few hard questions to hold the government to account.

On the face of it, Labour’s continued, official support for the government’s timetable renders today’s Supreme Court verdict of little practical consequence - in the Commons, at least. 

In December, our front bench had tried to be clever, crafting a mild motion calling for debate on a published plan before Article 50, to stir a Tory rebellion. But the PM smartly agreed to the demands, tacked on her timetable and Labour got trapped into riding her coat-tails. 

But at least now, through amendments to a government bill, we’ll have the chance – and so will the Lords – to influence the terms of departure, and who in the future has the final say.

In the PM’s speech a fortnight ago, I was pleased with her commitment to protecting the UK’s science base. Last week, I was at the opening of the fifth Innovation Centre at Keele University’s Science Park on my patch, for which European funding has been vital. That’s been hammered out, until 2020, but what happens further out is wholly up in the air. 

I was happy as well, of course, with the passage on workers’ rights. Ten years ago, I introduced the Private Member’s Bill to stop abuse of agency workers – a Labour 2005 manifesto commitment – which was then delivered at European level. That was aimed directly, too, at tackling the sort of levelling down that, all those years ago, was already stoking anger at immigration in areas like mine.

But these were, really, just warm words for the wider audience. The key concerns for our industry, local and national, about tariff-free trade and access to the single market are still there in spades. And in the 21st century economy, we have not squared "control of our borders". The demand for skills, not least when incomers from outside the EU – the element the government ostensibly can limit – formed the majority in the last statistics.

The reality is that, once Article 50 is triggered, the government will not control the agenda.  That will be in the hands, like it or loathe them, of the other 27 member states. 

The PM’s statement was workmanlike, with no real surprises; but what hardly helps the negotiations are the frenzied Noises Off-style gaffes. For Boris Johnson to liken any French President, on his way out or not, to a Colditz camp guard just stores up more trouble for tough times ahead.

In my formative years, way before politics, I organised international youth exchanges. Every summer, teenagers from all over Europe gathered to tend war graves in Berlin – where wounds of conflict were still fresh, and the Cold War divided the city by the Wall. 

My involvement came from growing up in Newcastle - in Staffordshire, where the German cemetery from both world wars lies next to the Commonwealth memorial on Cannock Chase. I grew up believing that the European Union and its forerunners, for all their frequent frustrations, were part and parcel of the architecture of peace, not just prosperity. 

Those loftier arguments, however, got lost sadly in the bewildering trading of facts and fictions in the referendum. "Turkey, population 76 million, is joining the EU. Vote Leave." Well no, it’s not, but those huge, bright red posters certainly changed the tone of the debate in the last few weeks on many a street last June, not just in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
 
After a narrow 52 per cent to 48 per cent Leave vote, we are now, though, where we are. 

For Labour, on our front bench Keir Starmer has been trying to make the best of a bad hand. Thanks to the Supreme Court, he now has an extra card. But I still just don’t like the way the dealer has stacked the deck.

Paul Farrelly is the Labour MP for Newcastle-under-Lyme. He has sat on numerous select committees, and currently sits on the Culture, Media and Sports committee.