(I would like to thank Jeff Isaac and Roxana Marinescu for their suggestions. All perspectives are mine.)
On June 15, the Supreme Court of the United States stated through a 6-3 majority decision that gender and sex are not the same thing. To discriminate against sex as the body parts one has is not the same as discriminating against a person’s gender identity or sexual orientation. How did we get here? Did Neil Gorsuch and John Roberts wake up one day and decide that gender is a real thing and not some political subversive idea “proselytized” by feminists? No, it came about through a long process of challenging heteronormative binary gender roles that started hundreds of years ago. Seeing gender for what it is—biology, plus social norms, plus individual choices to self-represent, all intersectionally related to so many other cultural and social categories meaningful in our world—has come about through generations of unlearning and readjusting our knowledge making with all human beings counting.
Today, I woke up to learn that the Romanian Parliament has voted to pass a law, now awaiting the presidential approval of Klaus Iohannis, that makes it illegal to distinguish between gender and sex in higher education. It literally makes it illegal to question the difference between the two, giving a huge finger to the entire field of gender studies to date, as well as to all of those people who have been freed by the work of challenging gender stereotypes done through gender studies. Not that gender studies is a huge field with enormous epistemic or political authority that threatens patriarchal misogynist disciplines, universities, and publications. It is an emerging field, populated with people of different perspectives on gender and with different definitions of how gender and sex intersect.
President Iohannis has an opportunity to put an end to this discriminatory initiative and to veto the legislation. Why should Iohannis care about gender studies? Because in Romania:
- Judges believe that a girl of fourteen who is mentally disabled can give consent to sex and thus the men who gang raped her were just having some fun with a consenting partner and could not be sentenced for rape;
- When a rape survivor is burned alive by her sexual predator released from prison early, many men and women consider her at fault (“she should not have opened her mouth”);
- When a fifteen year old girl is raped and then chopped up by her predator, the Minister of Education, Ecaterina Andronescu (currently senator who pushed for the change in the law I describe above), blames the victim for getting in the car with the predator;
- When a woman that was raped and is bleeding visibly runs to a police car asking for help, the two officers (one male, one female) sit in the car indifferently, and it takes a civilian passer-by to call an ambulance;
- When an elected mayor of the ruling National Liberal party confesses he had raped minors, his party considers it sufficient to simply allow him to dissociate himself from that, and has nothing more to say about the incident or its own selection of such members.
I can go on with hundreds of such examples, unfortunately. Although Romania had to gender mainstream its public administration to become part of the EU, those changes have been on the surface, unaccompanied by a thorough re-examination of the broader problem of profound misogyny in most of humanistic and social science discourse, especially in the pre-university curriculum. Teachers are not trained to understand gender bias. They teach it with great self-assurance, unless they get educated on the side, and then they can suffer the ire of misogynist parents and administrators who might challenge their approach.
A National Council for Combating Discrimination has been in existence for over a decade. It has not changed the behavior of most people, because it can’t. It can only sanction the very few cases that come before it. What can change the game is gender education. But after a long battle over what gender education might mean, feminists who wanted to see a thoughtful, research based, gender pedagogy put into practice lost to their misogynist opponents. The big fear that resonated with the lawmakers was that gender education is in fact a form of turning minors into sexual “perverts” and “deviants.” We’ve seen this movie before. It was what prop. 8 in California a decade ago claimed. It was what Putin’s anti-LGBTQ legislation is based on.
The only way to eliminate the dangerously ignorant and bigoted perspective on gender evinced by the current bill in the Romanian Parliament is through education. Education for all. Education for the educators, for the religious authorities, for the elected officials, for children starting at the latest in 7th grade, for their parents. Education for judges, lawyers, and the police. Public education for a mature democratic society. But if knowledge makers are forbidden to question the epistemic foundations of how gender and sex as norms have been constructed and used for discriminatory purposes for hundreds of years, what hope do we have for improving our behavior into the future?
The bill represents gender analysis that distinguishes gender from sex as a form of proselytizing. Its stated goal is to “forbid proselytizing in schools on the basis of sex and respectively gender criteria.” What does that mean? In the initial law, proselytizing refers to the following things:
- Activities that go against moral norms. [The moral norms are not defined, and no indication is given that moral norms are the product of cultural discourses and not some fixed thing.]
- Activities that endanger the safety or health (physical or mental) of minors and the personnel working in schools.
- Political proselytizing.
- Religious proselytizing.
To these types of interdictions, the bill adds proselytizing on the basis of “the theory or opinion that gender and sex are not always the same thing.” Insisting in naming this distinction as the very definition of proselytizing is nothing short of censorship and outward discrimination on the basis of both gender and sex.
Even sadder is the fact that there are thousands of people in Romania who are in fact excellent gender researchers. Some of them, like Mihaela Miroiu, created feminist theory programs two decades ago, and those programs have produced many talented researchers and policy makers, who have been advocating and doing their own work to educate others on matters of gender justice. The political class knows these people. They choose, however, to ignore the experts and now are attempting to muzzle any further work in this direction.
If the elected officials of Romania care about education, they need to consult with the educators who have spent decades dealing with patriarchy and misogyny in their research in eliminating all the forms of gender discrimination present in the content, methodologies, theories, and pedagogy currently present in much of Romanian education. Those experts, with prominent peer reviewed publications, have been writing about this for more than a decade. But those voices are being discounted and explicitly criminalized moving into the future. Just because one Senator trained as a theologian (Cristian-Vasile Lungu, who initiate the amendment) is offended by gender studies, it doesn’t follow that his opinions are based on any kind of scientific evidence. In fact, his opinion flies in the face of scientific consensus in most societies that are not theocracies or autocracies and where gender studies has developed as a field. Ignorance and censorship has never produced progress. It won’t this time, either. But it will start a war in which the politicians who passed this law will have been the first to act as political proselytizers in the name of stopping proselytizing.
President Iohannis should go a lot further than refusing to sign this law. He needs to assemble a task force made of people who have the necessary experience for such a complex task, those with the training and commitment to this important goal for Romanian society into the future. There is a rich community of people who have dedicated their entire successful scholarly careers and/or professional lives to better understanding and especially improving gender relations in our society through education and policy making. And a serious, national discussion about this issue needs to follow, where experts on the matters at hand, and not dilletantes who have done little if any self-educating on the matter, sit at the head of the table. If Iohannis actually cares about all the people who live in Romania, and is truly serious about leading a Romania that is a mature democracy among other mature democracies, then now is the time for him to demonstrate it.
Article first published here: https://publicseminar.org/essays/gender-as-proselytism/
Hi Maria,
E mai greu sa te faci inteleasa in acest domeniu! Din cauza unora ca mine – inginer- matematica, fizica si mecanica pe paine…Este la fel de greu ca si cantatul la vioara daca nu prea ai talent! Totusi cateva chestiuni ; nu neg cercetarea in domeniu – asa o fi. Va disparea pronumele „el” si „ea”? cum vom putea sa ne referim la o femeie daca nu cu „ea” sau la un barbat daca nu cu „el”?
” Va disparea pronumele “el” si “ea”? cum vom putea sa ne referim la o femeie daca nu cu “ea” sau la un barbat daca nu cu “el” ?”
Umorul este de apreciat ( sa vedem ce va raspunde autoarea ) , dar realitatea nu este atat de vesela . Sa vedem cum este la altii :
” Sunt îngrijorată de uriașa explozie de femei tinere care doresc să își schimbe sexul și, de asemenea, de numărul din ce în ce mai mare al acelora care vor să se detransiționeze (adică să revină la sexul lor inițial), deoarece regretă că au făcut acest pas care, în unele cazuri, le-a modificat corpul în mod irevocabil și le-a luat fertilitatea. Unii spun că au decis să își schimbe sexul după ce și-au dat seama că erau atrași de același sex și că tranziția a fost parțial determinată de homofobia fie din societate, fie din familiile lor.
Probabil că majoritatea oamenilor nu sunt conștienți de acest lucru – nici eu nu am fost, până nu am început să cercetez acest subiect – însă în urmă cu zece ani, majoritatea persoanelor care doreau să treacă la sexul opus erau bărbați. Acest raport s-a inversat acum. Marea Britanie a înregistrat o creștere de 4400% a fetelor care optează pentru tratamentul de tranziție. De asemenea, fetele cu autism sunt foarte numeroase în rândul celor care optează pentru schimbarea de sex.”
( https://www.marginaliaetc.ro/j-k-rowling-autoarea-romanelor-harry-potter-despre-activisimul-transsexual-sunt-ingrijorata-de-explozia-uriasa-de-femei-tinere-care-doresc-sa-isi-schimbe-sexul-am-fost-numita-o-femeie-us/)
Daca „EA ” devine ” eL” si daca ” El ” devine ” eA „, atunci cine cu cine se mai casatoreste de fapt ?
Finalul este rezumat de titlul unui film cu Jackie Chan : ” Who am I ? ” si poate fi completat ( Si cu cine m-am casatorit ? )
si aici un articol interesant pe aceeasi tema:
https://www.1843magazine.com/features/when-girls-wont-be-girls?fbclid=IwAR0o_HRCp4heGc0BhOQeB7LmfqSrjxM2CHt_R831ERHu7Q2mwJXbvHJghy4
Da, si pentru mine este argumentul cel mai clar impotriva lobby-ului pentru identitatea de gen.. poate induce confuzii identitare, periculoase la varste mai putin coapte.. si daca solutia sunt terapiile si operatiile de schimbare de sex, pai ceva este in neregula..
Nu sunt expert în materie de gender studies, dar ceea ce m-a ajutat nițel să pricep conceptul abstract de gender este analogia cu rasa. Gender și rasa sunt ambele constructe sociale ușor de confundat cu noțiuni biologice. Nu știu exact cum se traduce gender in limba română. Google Translate este de părere că se traduce sex. Mai degrabă însă mi se pare potrivită categoria gramaticală denumită gen. Cel puțin acolo e clar că vorbim de un construct social că masa are ea picioare dar zero organe sexuale deci nu putem să ne bazăm pe sex să-i determinăm genul.
Se spune des că Barak Obama a fost primul președinte de culoare al Statelor Unite (și există motive să bănuim că și el crede la fel). De fapt, dacă ar exista o definiție biologică a rasei președintele Obama ar trebui să fie intr-o anumită proporție alb, deci când el zice că este de culoare se referă la o categorie socială cu un anumit număr de conotații istorice care nu au nici o legătură cu biologia. Acesta este constructul social și este politicos să-i lasăm pe fiecare să ne spună ei ce părere au despre rasa și sexul propriu (cu ce se identifică).
Doar pentru că genul și rasa sunt concepte sociale nu înseamnă că nu sunt imporante. Nu contează dacă crimele comise pe motiv de gen sau rasă au motivații sociale sau biologice dar este improbabil că cei care le comit înțeleg diferența.
De curând la serviciu unii au început să pună in semnătură pronumele cu care preferă să fie identificați. Până acum am văzut numai semnături de la personanele la care le-aș fi ghicit pronumele (fiind aliați cis gender). Deci mi s-a părut ineficient să facem un obicei din a ne prezenta cu prenumele preferat când mare majoritate poate fi ușor ghicită. Dar înțeleg lupta pentru a da puterea de a dispune de câtva din timpul meu pentru cei care în general nu au multe puteri. încă nu m-am hotărât dacă e o idee bună, dar m-a forțat să mă gândesc și cred ca asta și vroiau.
RESPECT, doamna Bucur-Deckard
Thus we see the whole, awful picture merge together. It is Cthulhu. We don’t just live in something vaguely like a Puritan theocracy. We live in an actual, genuine, functioning if hardly healthy, 21st-century Puritan theocracy.
What this means is that you can trust hardly any of your beliefs. You were educated by this system, which purports to be a truth machine but is clearly nothing of the sort. Since the US is not the Soviet Union, hard scientific facts—physics, chemistry, and biology—are unlikely to be wrong. But the Soviet Union actually did pretty well with hard science.
Other than that, you have no rational reason to trust anything coming out of the Cathedral—that is, the universities and press. You have no more reason to trust these institutions than you have to trust, say, the Vatican. In fact, they are motivated to mislead you in ways that the Vatican is not, because the Vatican does not have deep, murky, and self-serving connections in the Washington bureaucracy. They claim to be truth machines. Why wouldn’t they?
The Cathedral, with its informal union of church and state, is positioned perfectly. It has all the advantages of being a formal arm of government, and none of the disadvantages. Because it formulates public policy, it is best considered our ultimate governing organ, but it certainly bears no responsibility for the success or failure of said policy. Moreover, it gets to program the little worm that is inserted in everyone’s head, beginning at the age of five and going all the way through grad school.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified/
We also have (one) answer to the first question of the… credulists: how a scientific consensus can produce a fraudulent result. The answer is simple: the entire field is fraudulent. In a fraudulent pseudoscience, there is no incentive at all for uncovering error, because the only result of a successful dissent is to destroy your job and those of your peers.
…
the source of coordinated error is not, at all, a conspiracy. It is simply the funding source. Nearly every scientist in a field can be working together to promote a falsehood because they all get their money from Joe Romm and company. And if the falsehood is exposed rather than promoted, there is no field left.
…
What we’re looking at here is mainstream pathological science. This is a basic and unfixable flaw in the entire Vannevar Bush design for federally-funded science. Once cranks, quacks, or charlatans get a foothold in the NSF and/or the universities, and establish their quack field as a legitimate department of Science, they are there to stay.
…
Again, we see both scientific and public opinion changing not to follow the truth, but to follow the funding. The entire […] industry is thus best explained as an intellectual pathology of the 20th century’s disastrous decision to convert disorganized, decentralized, and unofficial science into organized, centralized and official science.
This gives us our policy prescription: end all official funding of science, especially in cases in which the output of the science drives public policy. If a government is to rely on the advice of scientists, it must make sure that it is relying on actual, falsifiable science, and that the institutions producing that science have no incentive to produce anything other than the truth. The obvious way to do this is to separate science and state, for the health of both.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22/
cu exceptia faptului ca presedintele romaniei nu are drept de veto…
poate sa o retrimita in parlament o singura data.
Buna Maria,
In propozitia aceasta :
Not that gender studies is a huge field with enormous epistemic or political authority that threatens patriarchal misogynist disciplines, universities, and publications.
primul cuvant este `Not` sau `Note` ?
In ceea ce priveste articolul :
https://newdiscourses.com/2020/02/naming-enemy-critical-social-justice/
Si in special partea cu „epistemic and political authority” mi se pare interesanta :
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-knowledges/
Simplu: cu „dumneata” , sau la a III-a, „distinsa persoana care …”. Nu vi se pare mai civilizat, decat tu, el, ea, … .
In rest ma incearca o satisfactie teribila ca niste omuleti de pe planeta isi fac munca cu sarg, pronuntand decizii, ce au la baza o vasta cultura, ba chiar o mica enciclopedie … E senzational sa ajungi la un rezultat glisand de la un domeniu, la altul, si sa nu te inchistezi in tiparele topicii de felul : conf. art. .., raportat la art. .., coroborat cu art. …. Sunt si oameni care sparg aceste tipare ale topicii. (nu va grabiti sa ma blamati, am scris doar despre constructia deciziei si caracterul stiintific) .
P.S. Cred ca la un moment dat, profesorul Cioclei a publicat in primavara – vara anului 2006, intr-o revista de specialitate, despre homosexualitate si perversiuni, ca mod de obtinere a satisfactiei, folosind si mecanismele creierului, dupa care si-a exprimat opinia cu privire la moralitate si modificarea principiilor morale, de la o societate, la alta (nu am scris evolutie, deoarece consider ca perioada 1947- 1989, nu am evoluat moral) .
Rabdarea cred ca este virtutea cea mai importanta in aceasta privinta. Dogmatismul de orice fel, fie ca vorbim de religie, de filosofii, de stiinta nu va rezista in fata evolutiei. Incet, incet, unele lucruri se vor aseza asa cum le sunt ele harazite de bagheta evolutiei creierului si constiintei umane. E doar o chestiune de timp pana cand ultimele bastioane ale prozelitismului si conservatorismului bigot vor cadea, pentru ca, inca odata spun, cine se opune evolutiei, progresului, e sortit pieirii, e o lege naturala valida de sute de milioane de ani si asa va fi pana la sfarsitul tuturor lucrurilor. Ce vedeti acum sunt doar ultimele zvacniri ale unor stereotipuri muribunde, in fond, nici statuia lui Lenin (conservata de 100 de ani) nu va rezista la infinit.
Ce legatura au studiile despre schimbarea sexului a tot felul de rataciti, care vor sa revina ulterior asupra deciziei (te doare capul) si care oricum reprezinta o minoritate absolut nesemnificativa cu cazuri de viol sau pedofilie? Vreti sa discutati de sexul cu minori? Pai uitati-va in gradina Hollywoodului. Nume mari sunt implicate cu dovezi si pentru altele exista doar supozitii. Nume grele, monstrii sacri, implicati in retele complexe care ofera orice serviciu si discretie absoluta, Si nu-i vorba oamenii sunt foarte deschisi, progresisti si liberali autentici, firi de artisti! Asta e o chestie veche de cand Pamantul. Cei cu bani si influenta isi vor folosi atuurile pentru a abuza de cei fara aparare sau mijloace. N-are California o legislatie permisiva? Nu este un stat evoluat? Si cu ce ajuta asta victimele abuzurilor?
Cu cat o societate se perverteste mai tare intra intr-o spirala a autodistrugerii si va fi eliminata, de cele mai multe ori brutal de populatii mai simple dar care isi pastreaza instinctele de supravietuire intacte. Uitati-va la ce se intampla in Europa Occidentala cu presiunea islamica. Aceasta comunitate extrem de unita (umma) care asculta de percepte stricte si extrem de simple va subjuga si elimina in cateva decenii o societate super hedonista, extrem de individualista, care a pierdut de mult orice busola, simt al comunitatii si instinct de supravietuire.
Ideea ca o societate nu poate merge decat inainte ca reintoarcerea la barbarie este utopica este infirmata de istorie. In conditii de stabilitate si bogatie echilibrul este mentinut cu subventii grase dar in conditii de criza majora, de colaps total ce credeti ca se va intampla?
Toata aceasta gargara izvorata din complexitatea unei societati ultra sofisticate si bogate nu va mai valora 2 bani. Tot acest gunoi scos la suprafata si valorizat intr-un mod grotesc isi va dovedi valoarea practica nula. Legile selectiei naturale isi vor face treaba cu o eficienta garantata.
Mi se pare uluitoare virulenta luarilor de pozitie pentru un non subiect pentru marea majoritate a populatiei. Astea sunt chestiunile esentiale, arzatoare? Hai sa fim seriosi.
Nu aveti cu cine discuta… Sunt oameni care traiesc in bula lor restransa, cu ideile lor fixe si incapabili sa supravietuiasca intr-o lume normala… nulitati si sfertodocti care daca renunta la „ideile” lor, nu le mai ramane decat vidul… nu se pricep la nimic, nu valoreaza nimic intr-o societate sanatoasa… si intr-un fel sau altul vor ajunge la locul lor… partea proasta e ca distrug o civilizatie cu aberatiile lor…
Dear Maria,
I have one question: is your article worth reading as long as it seemingly starts with a gross mispresentation in its first phrase?
You say that „On June 15, the Supreme Court of the United States stated through a 6-3 majority decision that gender and sex are not the same thing”. But this appears to be untrue. In the Court’s words (the majority opinion), „we must decide whether an employer can fire someone simply for being homosexual or transgender”, which is pretty different.
Could you be so kind to point us to the exact paragraph where the Court is saying that? Maybe I’ve missed something…
Pai amendamentul adoptat de parlament pare sa combata tocmai prozelitismul, interzicind activitatile care urmaresc raspindirea de idei in paradigma de gen. E vorba de idei care pot afecta direct persoana in mod radical si cu care parintii copiilor din scoli poate nu sunt intotdeauna de acord. Nu e ca la matematica sau limba romana.
Dear Maria,
1) I voted against banning homosexual marriages in Romania and was glad to see the result.
2) I would never dream of discriminating against members of the LGBT community on the basis of their sexual orientation (but also not give them preferential treatment). May the best win, regardless of gender, sex, colour of the skin, etc.
That being said I have several comments:
1) The examples you give have no connection whatsoever with the gender/sex definitions and the SCOTUS decision. Yes, they refer to violence against women but Romanian justice, like the EU one in general, is extremely lenient regardless of the crimes committed.
2) I see the difference between sex and gender and understand very clearly that one can be a man, with male reproductive organs, but feel like a woman (had colleagues like this). If he wants to be called a „she” it´s no problem with me. Also sharing a toilet with transgenders or what problems there might be over there.
The problem starts when you see an episode of „The good fight”, latest season (highly recommendable, by the way) where three swimmers compete for a slot on the Olympic US team. You should watch it and try another article on this theme.
3) I hope you read New York Review of Books occasionally. Masha Gessen, an admirable Russian-American journalist and LGBT activist, has her latest book reviewed and the reviewer refers to her as „they”, since she identifies as „nonbinary” (I would´ve written „non-binary”, had I been the editor:)). I commended myself the day that I read said review because it helped me expand my grasp of contemporary English but even after consulting several websites I still don´t understand: How can a person which has obviously only one head and only one body become several persons? Physically that cannot be. Does it perhaps have to do with the number of personalities? Then we´re in the situation of „multiple personality disorder”, which is a mental illness, according to medical science. I don´t want to be rude, it´s just beyond my power of imagination and believe me, I have a vivid imagination, also in terms of understanding how smb gay can feel like a man and a woman alternatively, maybe also at the same time. Less if gay means „lesbian”, unless one uses non-natural utensils.
Otherwise yes, in Romania women are still subjected to violence and Romanians certainly need to change their patriarchal attitudes towards women. They also need to change the entire parliament and political class but slowly we´re running out of parties to choose from …
https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2020/07/02/masha-gessen-surviving-autocracy-democracy-red-line/
Mult zgomot pentru nimic.
Mult-blamatul proiect de lege nu interzice „to question the epistemic foundations of how gender and sex as norms have been constructed and used for discriminatory purposes for hundreds of years”.
Mult-blamatul proiect de lege nu afecteaza lupta impotriva abuzurilor sexuale, a discriminarilor, a violurilor, a misoginismului.
Mult-blamatul proiect de lege nu obliga fetele sa se joace cu papusi si baietii cu masini, sau femeile sa stea la cratita.
Mult-blamatul proiect de lege nici macar nu interzice studiile de gen („gender studies”) in sine. Adica, presupun ca acestea nu erau exclusiv despre si numai despre genul ca si conceput diferit de sexul biologic, nu?.
El interzice doar „teoria sau opinia că genul este un concept diferit de sexul biologic și că cele două nu sunt întotdeauna aceleași”. Ce legatura are asta cu misoginismul, violurile, blamarea victimelor violurilor, machismul si altele din Romania?
Ce legatura are „Judges believe that a girl of fourteen who is mentally disabled can give consent to sex” cu opinia că genul este un concept diferit de sexul biologic și că cele două nu sunt întotdeauna aceleași? Ce legatura au cele 5 exemple data de doamna autor cu opinia că genul este un concept diferit de sexul biologic și că cele două nu sunt întotdeauna aceleași?
Mi-as fi dorit mai multa acuratete in textele publice ale unui cadru didactic.
Da, proiectul de lege este ingrijorator prin aceea ca se intervine brutal, cu bocancii, intr-o chestiune eminamente educationala. Este foarte ingrijorator ca niste senatori cauta sa interzica de azi pe maine opinii si idei, cam ca in Rusia Putinista, la initiativa unor grupuri obscure de influenta. Asta este intr-adevar socant.
Daca un barbat se crede Napoleon, e internat la glumeti… daca se crede femeie, poate merge la toaleta femeilor si sa concureze la categoria femei in competitii… Nu e o discriminare aici ? :)
The balance has been lost in the pampered, sheltered and bored western societies. It is the syndrome of the proverbial absent father, the one that would offer guidance and set limits for a child yet too immature to function well in the world. Today it is all mother, it is all very much about feelings, rather than reason.
With respect to the author, in an article otherwise ripe with classic strawmen, American universities, with their numerous disciplines whose names end in „studies” have lost all their credibility and good standing as places of real exchanges of ideas. They have veered left so much that they are actual hotbeds of marxism, which is truly a sad state of affairs.
While the dangers of the State over-regulating and intervening in the private life of citizens cannot be denied, there is an equally dangerous push for control coming from the feral left.
Restore balance in all.