Torbjörn Tännsjö: That is the only reasonable conclusion
This is a debate article. It is the writer who stands for the opinions presented in the text, not Aftonbladet.
Published 2024-04-13 06.00
share-arrowDela
unsaveSpara
expand-left
full screen Reject the legal gender change bill. Instead, add an inquiry into abolishing legal gender. That is the only reasonable conclusion of the problems politicians have faced, writes Torbjörn Tännsjö. Photo: Mikael Lundblad, Stella/Alamy
DEBATE. Identity politics crowd out important political issues. Right now it’s about choosing legal gender. How should such elections be regulated, who should decide, at what age should they be able to take place? If the questions are formulated, they are difficult to answer and malignant contradictions are forced into the day.
We get a poisoned discussion about something that should be seen as a sham problem. The Gordian knot can easily be dissolved by an alexander hack if the state draws the only reasonable conclusion from the problems it has faced: stop publicly registering gender.
Traditionally, the question of gender has been perceived as simple. There are two genders, female and male, period. Most people are probably satisfied with this rough classification. However, it is known that a not insignificant part of the population feels uncomfortable with it. It has a simple explanation.
If we look at it more closely, we realize that it is simplified.
What is gender? A question about chromosomes, XX (female), XY (male)? In most cases, yes. In exceptional cases: no. In reality, more chromosome sets appear with unclear meaning for the question of male or female.
These are few cases, but important for those affected. The most common variants are Monosomy X (Turner syndrome) – 1 in 2,000 newborn “girls” – and XXY (Klinefelter) – 1 in 700 “males”.
Is gender perhaps instead a matter of external genitalia? In most cases, yes. Breast and vagina (female), testicles and penis (male). In reality, there are cases where external genitalia and chromosome set do not match, and even external and internal genitalia can present a contradictory picture.
Few cases, but important to those affected.
Is gender perhaps ultimately rather a matter of perceived identity? For most, chromosome set, internal and external genitalia coincide with perceived sex. But not for everyone.
The problem is not only that some individuals who could be considered biologically as women experience themselves as men, and vice versa (gender dysphoria), there are also many who object to the dichotomy itself, woman or man.
They are neither women or men, they claim. They constitute something third, if they are forced to think in terms of gender at all. In that case, they want to refer to themselves as “non-binary”.
How should society relate to the situation that has arisen, where the awareness of the complexity of this with gender has become the knowledge of every man, woman and non-binary?
There is an obvious solution: the state should stop meddling in the issue of the citizens’ gender.
If the state stops registering legal gender, it does not mean the end of identity politics. Some conservative feminists, who see themselves as “real” women, with breasts, ovaries, wombs and vaginas and a secure female identity, will continue to be provoked by trans women, who believe they are also women even if they lack some of the new listed characteristics.
One advantage, however, is that their battles can be fought without the involvement of parliament or legislation. They are free to form their own individually designed communities. The club for real women – headed by Kajsa Ekis Ekman – does not have to accept trans women backed by the RFSL as members. Or vice versa. The state does not need to get involved in that matter.
Impractical? No, simple. In situations where various systematic differences between individuals matter, it is possible to deal with the matter without any official national gender register.
How should gender be dealt with in healthcare? You go for what is relevant in the situation. Does the individual have a uterus, ovaries, a prostate… when such questions are answered, it is possible to make a diagnosis and find solutions.
What about public toilets and changing rooms? The urinal is already on its way out. The solution is to individualize. There are still good reasons to do so if legal gender is something people freely choose. Anyone who wants to change or exercise their right in privacy should be allowed to do so.
How do you behave in sports? There, the crisis is already acute. There you already deal (clumsily) with the various borderline cases and ambiguities I wrote about at the beginning. It will not be easier if people are to be able to freely choose their legal gender.
If a man can become a woman through a simple decision, it hardly means that she will be allowed to compete against other women in special women’s sports. If Zlatan were to register as a woman with the aim of completing his career in women’s football, he/she would hardly be allowed access to either the Allsvenskan or the national team. But on what grounds would management say no?
Here, the sports movement faces difficult problems that it has so far failed to deal with satisfactorily. Now they want to keep special classes for women, but in that case they are forced to order individuals with high levels of testosterone to “dope themselves”, completely contrary to the sport’s official view on doping.
In the long run, an Alexander’s trick is also needed in sports: new class divisions based on real physical potential performance (muscle mass, sex hormones, etc.), where equals can compete against equals, regardless of gender (however this is perceived with gender).
Does a society without registration of the citizens’ gender mean that it is not possible to investigate whether gender discrimination occurs? No, such things can still be investigated, after those who become the subject of investigation are allowed to state their perceived gender themselves. When registers are established, people themselves can indicate how it perceives their gender.
Let me conclude with a simple piece of advice for Sweden’s Riksdag: reject the bill on investigation of legal gender change. Instead, add an inquiry into the abolition of legal gender.
Torbjörn Tännsjö, professor emeritus in practical philosophy
arrow Join the debate and comment on the article – like Aftonbladet Debatt on Facebook.