The Abolition of Woman

 

"Om könets existens" is a hard hitting book by Swedish feminist Kaja Ekis Ekman. The title is a double entendre, and can mean both "On the existence of gender" and "On the existence of genital organs"! Yes, it´s a "TERF" book criticizing the trans movement from a Marxist perspective (the author is an unapologetic Lenin Award and Robespierre Prize laureate). The book, published earlier this year, has already created quite a stir in the insular Swedish political climate, where "trans rights" have been unquestioned quasi-feminist dogma for years (cuz reasons). Yes, Ekis has been "cancelled", detractors claim that her book contains a myriad "factual errors" (it does not), that she "quotes the Daily Mail as a credible source" (and perhaps the Daily Stormer?) and other imaginary sins, but so far that strange Swedish rationality and sense of fair play has saved her. For instance, "leftist" daily Aftonbladet hasn´t seen fit to cancel her (or some other edgy contributors). The problem, however, is that no *real* debate about her book seems to be forthcoming, and probably never will. Probably because she is right, and probably also because she operates on an intellectual level far above the Swedish chattering classes... 

Most of the arguments and facts in "Om könets existens" will be familiar to English-speaking readers who followed the "debate" for the past 10 years or so, and need not concern us here. I have previously reviewed Abigail Shrier´s "Irreversible Damage" on this blog. One very obvious difference between Ekman and Shrier is that the latter is (probably) a Republican and works for the Wall Street Journal, while Ekman is a leftist. This makes Ekman free to attack "the elephant in the room" when it comes to trans issues: Big Pharma. Ekman believes that the lobbying power (and money) of the medical industry goes a long way to explain why "trans rights" have been accepted so fast, even in nations which still ban abortions or same-sex marriage. Also, the privately owned medical corporations are in league with government actors, which finances Big Pharma by tax payer money. The weird neo-liberal/left-liberal symbiosis so typical of the current system turns out to have a very concrete *material* foundation! 

But why would it be easier to advocate "trans rights" than abortion? After all, the medical industrial complex would surely find ways to turn abortions into a profitable business. Here the reason seems to be that "trans rights", while ostensibly progressive, are really a kind of postmodern neo-patriarchy. The trans issue can be captured by a system that is at bottom still anti-woman, while abortion in many cases cannot. The patriarchalism of "trans" is obvious both on the everyday level and ideologically. On an everyday level, we have cases where male sexual offenders get transferred to women´s prisons simply by *claiming* to be female, males competing in women´s sports, or males claiming to be female physically attacking female feminist activists. The end result is always the same: men´s spaces are kept intact, while female spaces are opened up to men. 

On the philosophical level, the new theory about gender seems to operate on three very different levels. On the most "exoteric" level (my term), it claims that there are 72 genders (give or take a few), that everyone can freely choose his/her/hir gender, and that one can even switch from one gender to another in a matter of seconds. This is the tolerant, individualist and "constructivist" level of gender ideology. But already on the second level, a shift occurs. Suddenly, the only genders that mean anything are male and female, and these genders are defined in strikingly traditional ways. If a boy dresses in pink skirts or plays with dolls, he simply must be a girl. If a girl is active, outgoing and likes sports? Definitely a boy! One example not mentioned by Ekman, but worth pointing out, is that the transgender flag shows stripes in white, baby blue and pink. Why *those* particular colors? On this level, constructivism is replaced by essentialism, but a curiously "idealist" essentialism. Gender identity is mental, but unchanging, while the body becomes "constructed" (and indeed re-constructed). But the real bait and switch occurs on the third level. Here, both constructivism and mental essentialism gives way to pure gaslighting, as it becomes clear that the real target of gender ideology is the really existing female. Males can become "women" by simply declaring themselves such, thereby forcing their way into female spaces, while the very word "woman" is declared problematic and abolished if used to designate actual women!

In my humble opinion, these contradictions show that the ideology shouldn´t really be taken seriously at all. It´s just an ever-changing cover story for the real thing: Big Pharma profits, institutional power, or the raw trips that come from beating up women in the streets or gaslighting them in "debates". (The constant contradiction between essentialism and constructivism is also typical of the gay rights movement, btw.) 

By abolishing the term "woman", the very category of people patriarchy oppresses is symbolically abolished and hence rendered invisible. The abolition of Woman turns out to be, surprise, the apotheosis of Man. But, of course, oppression continues anyway, since neither Woman nor Man can be abolished in the real world. Ekman points out the absurdity of a "feminism" that abolishes the very term designating the group it supposedly fights for, a bit like a labor union denying there are workers. 

Ekman´s alternative is what she calls "the dialectical view", in which sex and gender identity are seen as separate things, and gender roles - while influenced by biology - aren´t set in stone by it. That males and females are different *is* a materialist fact. Males can´t get pregnant and give birth to children, women can (and frequently do). This really is (gasp!) a fundamental biological fact. It explains why matrilinear societies tend to be more equal than patrilinear ones: women don´t need to control the males in order to know who their offspring are, while men must control women´s sexuality in order to be sure of precisely this thing. While matrilinear cultures thus never develop into oppressive anti-male "matriarchies", patrilinear ditto often do become anti-women patriarchies. At the same time, Ekman doesn´t believe that patriarchal gender roles are rooted in biology (let alone reproductive biology). No evidence has been found for fundamental differences between male and female brains, there is evidence from history of women filling "male" roles (and vice versa), and so on. 

 As for the Swedish, or indeed global, "debate" about these topics, I can see two possible solutions in my crystal ball, none of them pretty. One is an enormous backlash against "trans rights" (and individual trans-people) when a conservative populist movement gets elected to power, purges everyone to the left of Viktor Orbán, and makes patriarchy great again. The other is a series of bizarre medical scandals and law suits, perhaps involving tens of thousands of people, which will eventually break the back of Big Pharma, Big Shrink and Big Trans, but only after years of litigation and suffering (and then replaced by the next absurd fad, weight loss pills perhaps). Of course, there is no contradiction between the two scenarios...

With that pessimistic reflection, I close this review of Kajsa Ekis Ekman´s "Om könets existens".