Fears of Patriarchy: Why Trans Ideology Is Attractive

By Robert Jensen

Columbia Pride, 2023

[This essay is adapted from the chapter of It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics that the publisher would not include in the printed book or e-book. But that chapter is available free online. For more details, go to https://robertwjensen.org/books/its-debatable/.]

In my new book, It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics, I argue that the ideology of the transgender movement is intellectually incoherent and inconsistent with an ecological worldview, and that radical feminism offers a more accurate account of history and a more useful framework for dealing with sex/gender issues. (Actually, that chapter, “Defining Sex/Gender: Beyond Trans Ideology,” isn’t technically in the book; it was dropped by the publisher. That’s a long story, but the chapter is available at my website for free.)

Whether or not readers agree with this analysis, it shouldn’t be hard to understand the arguments, which certainly are plausible. But in some circles, feminist critics are deemed to be on the “fringe,” at least according to one mainstream journalist:

These fringe activists argue that advancements in transgender rights will come at the expense of women’s rights and threaten the safety and sanctity of women-only spaces. They say women are defined not by their gender identity, but by their biology and by having “survived girlhood.”

I know of no one who “rejects” the existence of people who identify as transgender.

Since the transgender movement has no clear and coherent explanation of transgender identity, it’s hard to imagine how anyone can be accused of denying their existence. And it is unclear why the positions ascribed to the group are fringe when so many feminists, not to mention many women and men who may not think of themselves as feminist, share those concerns. That reporter also writes that “radical feminists are helping to bolster [Republicans’] message, creating the perception of bipartisan support in a polarizing social debate.” Based on my experience, the bipartisan nature of many women’s rejection of transgender policy demands is not a “perception” but a reality.

I’ve been involved with feminism for more than three decades, and some of the most courageous and dedicated people doing battle with patriarchal gender norms and male domination I have known have been radical feminists—the very people the trans movement seeks to marginalize. At the risk of sounding glib, radical feminists were nonbinary before nonbinary was cool, challenging social norms that demand men and women fit into patriarchal boxes but acknowledging the reality of biological sex. That raises an obvious question: Why have so many liberal and postmodern feminists—along with so many people with liberal/progressive/left political leanings who are usually supportive of feminist politics—embraced transgender politics and ignored or demonized radical feminists? Why do these left-of-center folks ignore material realities in favor of a transgender ideology that even they will sometimes admit is hard to understand?

Many people tell me that they don’t challenge trans ideology because they want to be compassionate toward people in distress. That’s understandable, but it doesn’t answer the question of why trans ideology has become the dominant position on the left. Here’s my best explanation.

If the rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms that many of us want to resist are a product of patriarchy, then the obvious target for political organizing should be the practices of patriarchy, used here as a term for varied systems of male dominance in the family, economy, politics, and culture. If patriarchy forces us into rigid boxes, represses our ability to experience our full humanity, and generates a reactionary politics, then let’s go after patriarchy, right?

Madrid Pride, 2024

The problem is that fighting patriarchy is hard. It is the oldest of the oppressive social systems, going back several thousand years in human history, compared with several hundred for white supremacy and capitalism. Patriarchal ideas and modes of behavior are so woven into the fabric of everyday life that they can be hard to identify, let alone eliminate. Feminist organizing has forced some changes, such as improved laws against rape, domestic violence, and sexual harassment. But striking at the core of male dominance, especially at men’s sexual exploitation of women, produces intense backlash.

I learned this working on the feminist critique of pornography. The most hostile reactions to an analysis of the sexist and racist patterns in pornography came from liberal/progressive/left folks, especially men. I found that confusing at first, until my friend Jim Koplin (the same JK from whom I borrowed the phrase “multiple cascading ecological crises” in another chapter of the book) made a point that now seems obvious to me: When we critique pornography, people know it’s not just a critique of movies and magazines (this was years ago, before the internet ended the market for pornographic magazines) but of men’s assumption that they should be in control, as well as of the ways we learn to be sexual in a patriarchal culture. People are nervous about surrendering control and giving up methods for finding sexual pleasure, which I know because when I first encountered the critique it scared me, and I still struggle with all the ways I was socialized into patriarchal masculinity.

Why has the trans movement made such deep inroads on the left, to the point where a feminist challenge to trans ideology can get one banished from progressive spaces? My working hypothesis is that embracing transgender politics gives the appearance of challenging patriarchy without actually fighting male dominance. Instead of confronting male power, trans activists most often embrace patriarchal gender norms, implicitly or explicitly, or refuse to challenge those in the trans movement who do embrace those norms. Supporting the trans movement gives the appearance of feminist politics without facing the most vexing issues.

In some circles, these arguments cannot be articulated because people with these views are dismissed as being TERFs, trans exclusionary radical feminists, a term I reject. Radical feminists’ goal is not exclusion but expansion of understanding; they have for decades offered an alternative to transgenderism’s approach to the problem of patriarchy’s rigid, repressive, and reactionary gender norms.

(A quick aside: Ironically, a prominent liberal/left feminist journalist agreed that the term TERF is inaccurate, but for a very different reason. “I don’t think that they actually are feminists,” Lydia Polgreen said, asserting that a position held by many feminists transforms them into non-feminists because she disagrees.)

Radical feminists aren’t ignoring the suffering of people who identify as transgender but rather are offering a different way to think about that suffering. Nothing in radical feminism denies the emotional struggles of people who identify as transgender. Radical feminists seek to include those who experience gender dysphoria in a movement that challenges patriarchy and opens up new possibilities without yoking people to irreversible procedures and lifelong drug/hormone treatment.

Robert Jensen, an Emeritus Professor in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin, is the author of It’s Debatable: Talking Authentically about Tricky Topics from Olive Branch Press. His previous book, co-written with Wes Jackson, was An Inconvenient Apocalypse: Environmental Collapse, Climate Crisis, and the Fate of Humanity. To subscribe to his mailing list, go to http://www.thirdcoastactivist.org/jensenupdates-info.html.