The news this week about Imane Khelif reminds me of the exchange illustrated below, which I believe explains a significant aspect of the ideology that created this mess. One part of the relevant credo assumes that any person who makes allegations transphobia or some other flavour of bigotry, is intuitively capable of finding in others latent hatreds of victimised minorities that were otherwise not apparent. No actual evidence of hatred or bigotry is required. Instead, those screaming about transphobia merely assume the superiority of their own morals and ethics even on the most absurd pretence.
An example of such a preposterous circumstance is illustrated below. A core tenet of the relevant ideology is ‘Self ID’. That is, any man that decides on any given day to identify as a woman, must be considered as a woman in all respects without any further ‘gatekeeping’ or questioning. So if a male competitor in a dangerous contact sport like boxing or rugby decides to identify as a woman, then they must immediately be permitted to participate in the women’s category. Anyone who questions this is ‘transphobic’ and no further evidence of their bigotry is required. For example, if concerns are expressed about males punching women in the face or violently tackling women to the ground, then the motivation for those concerns can only be interpreted as hatred of a victimised minority.
In this case, the Irish Rugby Football Union had updated their guidelines on transgender participation, in line with those of World Rugby. The motivations for this decision, relating to safety and fairness, had been published in full detail. Nevertheless, all of this peer-reviewed scientific evidence was dismissed in order to insist that hated and bigotry were the only motivations. Making this allegation is synonymous with solipsistically claiming moral superiority, at the expense of women being subjected to male violence. Moreover in order to preserve the pretence of their own ethical pre-eminence, the idea that others could be concerned for the safety of women then had to be dismissed.
It is difficult to imagine a situation where the safety of women could be any more clearly implicated, than when they are being punched in the face by males. Nevertheless, in order to preserve an egotistical moral chauvinism, ideologues will twist themselves into even the most absurd knots. In this case, the risible suggestion is that people in the eighteenth century were entirely oblivious to any fairness or safety concerns relating to men boxing women. We’re asked to accept that any sensitivity about a male inflicting serious injuries on a woman, is entirely a function of our contemporary modernity. Instead, we’re informed that the only reason boxing ever had separate male and female categories is that “the patriarchy” wanted to exclude women.
The logical conclusion of this ideology is explicitly accepted in the exchanges illustrated above. The implication is that the male and female categories should be abolished altogether, even in dangerous contact sports. In boxing, categorisations should only be based on factors like weight and similar characteristics. In rugby where there are already small competitors playing against much larger counterparts, we must just force women to play against males notwithstanding the very well-evidenced safety and fairness concerns.
This ludicrous sophistry sets up an unwinnable game. Anyone opposed to competitors swapping from the male category to compete in the female category, is immediately diagnosed as a hateful transphobe. All evidence of safety and fairness concerns as the real motivation for the objection, is then dismissed on the basis that the sex-based categories themselves are merely an artefact of “the patriarchy”. Our gallant heroes will then fight the patriarchy, by insisting that women must be beaten up by male opponents.
In the exchange illustrated above, the goalposts are again shifted to adopt a new position that is incompatible with the previous one. Now we’re told that because there are only a small number of trans-identified males participating in the female category, that the commensurate safety concerns are just “an excuse”. That is, each woman who receives a serious injury at the hands of a male opponent can be dismissed, because there are not a large enough number of other women who have also suffered a similar experience. This new position now accepts that there are real safety concerns, but instead argues that the amount or quantum of women having their safety compromised has not yet reached some undefined threshold.
The exchange concludes with the nature of the ideology laid bare. The safety of women must be sacrificed by insisting they must submit to male violence, so that self-preening idealogues can pretend to have achieved some moral pinnacle from which they will judge all others. The tragedy of indulging this nonsense is that there are actual bigots in the world, who really do hate victimised minorities. No new ideology could be more explicitly in the interests of those actual bigots, than one which portrays almost everyone else as being guilty of the same attitudes.