Moral panic against the new gender identity law – but there are concerns to be taken seriously
share-arrowDela
unsaveSpara
expand-left
full screen On April 17, the Riksdag votes on a reformed gender identity law. Photo: Getty Images/iStockphoto
We live in a gender polarized society. Women and men stand further and further apart in political, economic and cultural matters. Gender differences are visible in measurements of school results and leisure activities, in professional life, in political preferences and in the choice of means of transport.
At the same time, we live in a society increasingly characterized by the rhetoric of rights, and by the idea that gender and sexuality should not play any role in what opportunities a person has to realize himself. Great success has been achieved in the field of gender equality policy, and even if oppression has not been eradicated – there are still gender-related pay gaps, rapes, breaches of the peace and murder – Sweden is now one of the least oppressive countries in the world.
At the same time, the women’s movement, the LGBTQI movement, feminist debate and gender research have created space to question gender and sexuality norms. This has led to improvements for women, for gay and bisexuals, for transgender people, for intersex people, and for people who don’t want to fit into the male/female divide. But even if gender pluralism has increased freedom, queers and trans people still suffer from the kind of contempt that leads to prejudice and psychological and physical suffering.
On one hand is society open, equal and conscious with equality plans, Pride parades, female marine corps commanders, popular gay intellectuals. On the other hand, society is still divided and oppressive, and increasingly unjust. While the prosperity of the few increases, many people suffer from lack of resources, insecurity and feelings of alienation.
For some feminists, the answer to these problems is a more persistent gender equality policy, which is based on the status of men and women being compared and then balanced. For that, intact gender categories are needed.
For others, the answer is instead about more freedom from binding norms and categorizations. This requires policies that enable self-realization through far-reaching individual freedom of choice – that is, a loosening of the gender categories. Opposing the feminists who disagree with each other are the conservatives, who see in both equality feminism and pluralist feminism a dissolution of norms and forced cultural liberalism.
pullquoteThe argument for this is about privacy – the authority responsible for the population register has nothing to do with the private parts of the citizens
In this dimmer the proposal on changing the gender identity law down. Actually, a fairly modest reform, with small actual changes for a relatively small group of people. Nevertheless, one gets the impression from the debate that the law is life-threatening. Ann Heberlein compare it to handing out heroin to addicts, Jimmie Åkesson warns that gang criminals are given opportunities to “clear” their “criminal history”. Agnes Wold believe the law will lead to male sex offenders in women’s prisons, and many envision a wave of voyeurs in the women’s locker room.
In fact, the bill differs quite a bit from the rules introduced in 1972. In practical terms, what happens is the following: a person has the right to have their legal gender changed in the population register without the state making counterclaims for medical or surgical interventions on that person’s body. The argument for this is about privacy – the authority responsible for the population register has nothing to do with the private parts of the citizens. In addition, the age limit is lowered from 18 to 16, the same year that you can decide on your own work income and four years after you can consent to open interventions in the social services – but a medical certificate and guardian’s consent are still required. As far as possible, the examination of gender identity must be based on the individual’s perception of himself – a reasonable starting point in a non-authoritarian society.
It will be at all not impossible to merge records just because the social security number has changed, so the law will never work as a cleared search history for criminals. It continues to be possible – and actually becoming somewhat easier – for correctional services to determine the appropriateness of individual custody and prison placements. Nor do the assessment grounds for medical and surgical interventions change – they must be carried out after careful assessments and with the aim of reducing suffering. The surgeon who, after a hasty investigation, can think of creating “Barbie abdomens” on anorexic children will not be able to lean against the law, if anyone really believed that.
When it comes to the changing rooms, which, incidentally, are rarely locked or equipped with gender controllers, the law is still unclear – no one really knows which law room regulates access. But as before, molestation is not allowed, so the man who thought to change his passport and driver’s license to be able to stare at ladies who change should probably think again.
pullquote That policy must at the same time be followed by a relaxation policy in the area of nudity
Two things behind moral panics are worth taking seriously.
First, alarmism shows a fear of the idea of men entering women’s intimate spheres. It is probably a reaction to society’s failure in the face of patriarchal violence – after all, women have reason to be afraid of men, a fact that cannot be waved away even if it is in itself a misguided argument against the gender identity law. Therefore, the feminist movement needs to unite in developing a powerful policy against men’s violence. That policy must at the same time be followed by a relaxation policy in the area of nudity. Gender segregation and anti-naturism – the notion that nudity can never be non-sexual, self-evident and safe – leads to gender mysticism and conservatism, and should be an obvious dead end for all feminism.
Secondly, there seems to be a fundamental mistrust of society’s ability to correctly meet people’s pain and need for help. Healthcare must deal with its problems of culverts, accessibility and priorities, and the well-being of young people must be taken more seriously. Of course, in the large increase in young women with co-morbidity who identify as trans, there are also completely different needs than gender-affirming care. But neither is this problem solved by withholding improvements for those who actually need such care, or the need for more flexible population registration. Instead of pitting groups against each other, the feminist movement should unite in the demands for a welfare that is able to meet the health and care needs of all people.
In a society which is characterized by both gender polarization and increased gender pluralism, moral panic around transgender people is not unexpected – they break the norm and at the same time prove that the norm is changing. Usually the moral panic subsides after a while, and appears in the rearview mirror as a convulsion in the system and in the more fragile intellects. Let’s hope the panic subsides soon, without too many political consequences.