Defending Women’s Spaces: A Leftist Case 

With prominent Democrats like Gavin Newsom and Pete Buttigieg recently acknowledging the trouble behind allowing trans-identifying men to compete in women’s sports, the demand to defend women’s spaces has never been more pressing. The issue of fairness takes center stage here: trans-identifying men have incredible biological advantages over women in sports, such as bigger bones and greater muscle mass. This concern isn’t new—many have cited it over the years, as in the cases of Laurel Hubbard competing in women’s Olympic weightlifting, Lia Thomas competing in women’s swimming, and Austin Killips competing in women’s cycling, just to name a few. But now, the issue is all the more pressing in light of recent comments. 

Trans rights activists responded to Newsom and Buttigieg with feelings of disgust and betrayal. Indeed, progressives largely think we should allow trans-identifying men to access women’s spaces. Newsom’s and Buttigieg’s sudden shifts in this regard seemed to come out of nowhere. 

I contend, however, that Newsom’s and Buttigieg’s new positions on this issue are entirely consistent with their progressive tendencies. In what follows I will attempt to explain how. 

The Gender-Sex Distinction 

To begin, trans activists differentiate between gender and sex; they consider gender one thing and sex another. Unfortunately, major organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA), American Medical Association (AMA), and World Health Organization (WHO) each define these terms slightly differently.  

All organizations agree that sex concerns biology. The APA claims, “Sex refers especially to physical and biological traits”; the WHO states that sex “refers to the different biological and physiological characteristics of females, males, and intersex persons, such as chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive organs”; and the AMA’s position reads that sex is “often” based on “assumed genotype and/or phenotype.” Progressives, however, further maintain that sex is “assigned” to us at birth. As Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE) puts it: “Sex is a label—male or female—that you’re assigned by a doctor at birth based on the appearance of the genitals you’re born with. It doesn’t define who you are, or what your gender identity might turn out to be” (emphasis added). Sex is “assigned” in that being male, for example, doesn’t guarantee that you’ll be a man—that is, that you’ll identify as a man. We might think you will, given that most males come to identify as men. But again, this isn’t guaranteed. Hence, sex is “assigned” (based on one’s biological appearance) because it doesn’t predict one’s gender identity. 

But what exactly is gender identity? Continuing with A4TE, gender identity refers to one’s “internal knowledge of [one’s] gender—for example, [one’s] knowledge that [one is] a man, a woman, or another gender.” Ignoring the blatant circularity of this definition—and that of the AMA’s and APA’s definitions of gender—the key takeaway is that “gender identity” is constituted by one’s recognition of oneself as a man, woman, or another gender. Thus, if one identifies as a man, then one is a man, and likewise for all other genders. 

The Male Woman 

Since trans activists distinguish between gender and sex, I shall accordingly distinguish between gender and sex terms. Following A4TE, “male” and “female” will serve as sex terms, respectively denoting those with male and female biology. In turn, “man” and “woman” will serve as gender terms, respectively denoting those who identify as men and women. 

The APA labels “transgender” “an umbrella term used to describe the full range of people whose gender identity and/or gender role do not conform to what is typically associated with their sex assigned at birth.” Thus, a transgender woman is someone who was assigned “male” at birth and now identifies as a woman. Put differently, transgender women have male biology—male chromosomes, genitalia, etc.—but identify and live their lives as women. 

This leads to my first premise: trans women are “male women,” according to transgender ideology. Consider: all major organizations that trans activists commonly cite agree that everyone has a sex. We were all labeled “male” or “female” at birth, based on our biology. Trans women are no exception to this rule. Trans women were “assigned male at birth” due to their male biology. In this sense, trans women are male, according to all major medical associations and thus to transgender ideology. 

This isn’t, of course, to say that, according to transgender ideology, trans women are men. Indeed, trans women identify as women. They cannot be men. Hence why we may intelligibly and rightly call trans women “male women” according to transgender ideology—because transgender women are males who identify as women. 

Notice what follows from the above, however. If it’s right—which it is—that transgender women are male women, then being transgender is, to quote the Supreme Court in Bostock v. Clayton County, “inextricably bound up with sex.” If trans women are male women, then in order for anyone to identify as a trans woman, he must first be male. If one is not male, then one is female. And if one is female and identifies as a woman, then she’s not a trans woman; she’s just a woman. In this way, sex directly constitutes a trans woman’s identity as a transgender woman. And if that’s true, then, I argue, this next premise follows: trans activists shouldn’t demonize a trans woman’s sex. They should celebrate it. 

Trans activists are adamant that trans people should take pride in being transgender, and that we must all support transgender individuals in their identities to ensure that end. Failing to affirm trans people shames them for who they are, which, in turn, fails to display the empathy and kindness characteristic of a moral nation-state. 

Now progressives like to pretend that gender identity is all that matters as it pertains to being transgender. Indeed, A4TE literally states that sex “doesn’t determine what you are,” i.e., that one’s sex plays no role in one’s gender identification and, therefore, that trans people ought to ignore it. But because trans people need their biological sex in order to be transgender, both of these claims are false from the trans-ideological perspective. Biology plays a significant role in a trans person’s identity. Again, without sex, transgender people couldn’t identify as transgender. Thus, for trans people to take pride in being transgender, they must take pride in their sex. If they cannot take pride in their sex, then they cannot take pride in their whole transgender being. 

That transgender people must take pride in not only their gender identity but also their sex changes the script ever so slightly as it pertains to affirming a trans woman’s gender. If trans women must pride themselves on their biology to fully embrace being transgender, then to properly affirm them, we cannot merely affirm them as women. We must also affirm them as males. If we don’t, then how can we, as progressives, be sure that trans women will accept their whole selves? Indeed, if trans women accept themselves as women but not as men, then they don’t accept themselves as male women—which is what they plainly are, according to transgender ideology, as shown earlier. And that’s incoherent from a trans-activist standpoint—it means that trans women don’t accept themselves as transgender.  

This is why trans ideology demands that trans women celebrate their sex rather than ignoring it: doing so will allow them to fully pride themselves as transgender persons, i.e., as male women. 

A Leftist Case for Defending Women’s Spaces 

Pro-trans rhetoric requires transgender persons to take equal pride in their social identity and their biology. If they fail to do so, then they will not fully accept themselves as transgender. With that in mind, I will now construct the progressive case for defending women’s spaces. 

The two main tenets to keep in mind are that trans women are male women and that, to be virtuous and ensure that trans women take pride in their gender identities, we must affirm trans women in their transgender identities. Since, however, trans women must take pride in their biology to properly pride themselves on being transgender, practicing proper gender affirmation toward them starts with practicing proper sex affirmation toward them. And a great way to affirm and ensure that trans women take pride in their biological sex is, I argue, to encourage trans women to use those spaces that correspond with their sex rather than their gender identity. 

Consider what happens when we allow trans “women” into women’s spaces. In this scenario, we’re not celebrating a trans woman’s biology. We’re demeaning it, treating it as unimportant, demanding that trans women deny a crucial part of their being as transgender individuals. When we allow trans women into women’s spaces, we encourage trans women to regard their sex with shame. This, however, is absolutely repugnant to progressive ideology. Again, since trans women need their biology in order to be transgender, they should be proud to be male, not ashamed. Pushing to allow trans women into women’s spaces, therefore, isn’t gender affirming. It’s gender disaffirming. It’s encouraging trans women to regard themselves poorly and falsely. 

But consider what instead occurs if we encourage transgender women to use those spaces that align with their sex. In that case, we’re encouraging trans women to take pride in their biology. We’re encouraging them to view themselves—their whole selves—positively. Isn’t that the message that we want to send as progressives? At the end of the day, which approach seems more caring toward trans women: encouraging them and society to deny their innate and medically significant biology that constitutes a major part of their trans identity? or encouraging trans women to take pride in their male bodies because that’s what allows them to identify as the wonderful transgender persons they are? The answer is obvious. 

So, to all those criticizing people like Newsom and Buttigieg who have recently joined the fight to defend sex-specific spaces: Consider your position. When you encourage trans women to access women’s spaces, you’re shaming trans women for being who they are—males. And that comes into tension with your whole ideology: Who are you to shame trans women for being who they are? Sex-specific spaces are, therefore, the clear bipartisan solution we can all celebrate as it relates to the issue of allowing trans-identifying men access to women’s spaces. 

Image licensed via Adobe Stock.