Introduction

This essay aims to provide historical context to the ongoing debate around gender, with a focus on transgender rights, a critical analysis of gender-critical theory, TERFs, trans-exclusionary policies, and their interplay with LGBTQIA+ or simply human rights. The essay’s primary goal is not to persuade readers to adopt a particular opinion or belief. Instead, its purpose is to present factual information that may naturally influence, based on evidence. The focus remains on providing an objective, evidence-based foundation rather than advocation based on a singular perspective or agenda, founded only in propaganda. The author holds a fact-based worldview, one that happily accepts transgender and cisgender folks sharing the same spaces as a basic human right; simply a critical review of gender theory.

Texts range widely to ensure fairness and inclusivity, with a particular focus on how historical contexts, from religion, colonialism, society at large, law, and feminism have shaped the dialogue of modern views of gender.

The voices that deserve to be the strongest belong to those directly impacted; to the trans community: I hold this space only for you and will gladly move aside if asked.

Methodology

To begin, an exploration of the 12th century views on women is conducted with a focus on how religion and the role of god-man has shaped the euro-colonial perception of gender and sex including the interplay within. It is shown that although the euro-colonial era is largely a thing of the past, western society cannot escape some of its most radical views.

During the 1800s there were many revolutions, realisations, advancements in science and technology, including a step-change in the makeup of the middle class. An exploration of how the upper-class subverted the religious teachings of the time juxtaposed with pushback from the middle-class attempting the same.

Moving to a modern view, British feminism has heavily influenced gender theory (both positively and negatively) with the modern, fifth-wave radical ideas commonly pushed by a small subset of the lesbian community. The US court systems identified issues with equality (which were not limited to gender) in the 1970s. Yet as a society in modern times, the US can only be seen to have gone backwards on both transgender and women’s rights. Lesbian feminists within these movements often challenged heteronormative assumptions embedded in mainstream feminism and should be rewarded as such. Radical lesbian thinkers like Sheila Jeffreys argued for dismantling patriarchy by rejecting traditional heterosexual roles entirely. While their ideas were polarising even within feminist circles, they undeniably pushed boundaries by questioning not just gender roles but also structural systems of power that perpetuate inequality in a male-dominated world.

Fifth-wave gender-critical feminism however is rooted in second and third-wave feminist thought that emphasises sex-based oppression. Proponents argue that biological sex is immutable (“sex not gender”), believing patriarchal systems oppress women based on reproductive biology rather than societal perceptions of the female gender identity.

A general view of masculinity and femininity is posited, which seeks to explain how the concepts of binary gender (or sex) are not factually, or practically correct; many scholars argue that this binary framework is a social construct rather than an absolute truth. While biological differences between sexes exist in terms of chromosomes, hormones, and reproductive anatomy, these differences do not inherently dictate personality traits, preferences, or abilities. There are various societies, countries, and even religions that do not observe the binary concepts pushed by gender-critical or TERF theories.

Historical context for modern feminism, misogyny, and the role of religion

The Middle Ages (12th to 15th century) still have significant influence, at least in the western world on the use of the body as a sacrifice, therefore removing the autonomy of the individual to some higher power ¹ (Chapter 5). A significant portion of the modern western view of gender is based in Christian values, which themselves are based in “the enfleshing of the Divine word… focusing on the battered and bleeding body of Divinity dying”; ¹ thereby anchoring our societal view of the sacrifice of the body (i.e. pregnancy) to the Christian God-man.

There is significant attention given to “Transubstantiation” - the ritual feasting of the flesh and blood of Christ - literally feasting on the male incarceration of The Lord whilst referring to Christ as mother: “In these texts Christ is lover, yet is simultaneously mother”¹. The dichotomy is rife for the removal of the autonomy of the female. Christ is often seen bleeding “from His side wound (= breast)”¹. In the texts of the Middle Ages leading medical scholars believed “[the] uterus was, after the child’s birth, converted into breast milk”¹. These factually incorrect beliefs subverted the real power and importance of women in the reproductive cycle simply to the recreation of “His” teachings by action.

Misogyny is defined very simply in The Concise Glossary of Feminist Theory as “The fear or hatred of woman.”² The glossary goes on to say that “woman-hating is extraordinarily pervasive in contemporary Western culture, locating it in biological determinist IDEOLOGIES.³” Here again can be seen the mixing of gender and biology by the second-wave feminist movements. Furthermore, those who preach gender-critical theory are fearing and frequently hating a large group of women. It can only be concluded, therefore, that this women-hating rhetoric is misogynistic by definition no matter the perpetrator.

Masculinity and the middle-class

Cathrine Hall notes, until the late eighteenth/early nineteenth centuries the landed gentry were still in power, despite the Reform Act of 1832 and the abolition of the Corn Laws in 1836. In an attempt to gain power the middle-class men moved the arbiter of “status” from a chosen lack of work (i.e., being the Lord of the manor with staff and tenants), to the work itself⁴. This was reinforced with the elevation of religious and moral standing, to quote Hall “proud pretensions”⁴, firmly linking the Evangelical relation with the political economy of the nineteenth century. With this outlook came the worst of the twelfth century teachings documented in Feminine Masculine and Representation to the centre of political life.

The phrase “a man must act” was popularised during this time, as Hall notes, linking the success of an action to the “manliness of the man”⁴. The result: the “others” (i.e., women, children, servants, employees, slaves) in society were defined as those who depended on the man. Being seen as English, successful, with dependents became the primary arbiter for how manly a man was. Unfortunately, this worldview requires a subjugation of at least one category of people, usually more. It is clear to see the link between this dogma and the modern day view of masculinity, despite the feminist advancements made in the twenty-first century including the emancipation of women.

The dogma of “work as the only way to live” appears in Concerning Men and Other Papers with reference to “Idle hands” being the “probable cause” of Ireland’s troubles during the nineteenth century⁵. In the modern world-view this appears not only contrary to the fact, but also incredibly English-centric, not to mention unkind; the popular view of ’enlightenment‘ being work itself carved out a place for middle-class men. Mrs. Craik continues “…women have been at the root of half the revolutions of the world, tellingly as a result of those pesky “idle hands””⁵.

Gender as defined by fact

The Concise Glossary of Feminist Theory defines ‘Gender‘ as a social construct that “…began to encroach even upon biology itself”³, highlighting that “The proliferation of quotation marks is telling.³” Repeatedly, the distinction between sex and gender is being blurred, raising critical questions for certain branches of feminism that has relied on the perceived differences between female and male. If lines between genders are blurred, who should one be mad at, campaign against? It is clear to see the link between the blurring of gender lines and the pushback from the radical TERF camps. The glossary is at pains to call out that gender, being a social construct, can’t be separated from class, race, and other social factors.

Many Indigenous cultures in North America have long recognised gender-diverse people, now often described through the pan-Indigenous term “Two-Spirit”, as individuals whose identities or roles may embody both masculine and feminine qualities.⁶ This recognition far predates European colonisation, demonstrating how gender categories can be culturally specific rather than biologically determined.⁷ Hijras are recognised as a third gender in India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, often associated with spiritual devotion, ritual blessing, and cultural significance, underscoring the idea that gender-fluidity can be something to be cherished, not feared.⁸ In Indonesia, waria - a blend of the words wanita (woman) and pria (man) - are individuals assigned male at birth who live openly as women or adopt feminine cultural roles. Defined not as transgender but “male femininity”, historically forming a visible part of Indonesia’s societal fabric (eroded today), again showing that gender variance has often been recognised and incorporated into culture, rather than simply feared or rejected.⁹

In Chapter 6.4 of Feminist Postcolonial Theory: a reader, Sara Mills opens by expressing frustration with, at their time of writing, current framework of thinking around the impact of colonialism on feminism. Mills identifies that limiting oneself to a purely psychoanalytical view ignores the material aspects of the colonial impact on women and feminism¹⁰” losing the very sense that colonialist acts are at fault. In fact, Mills posits that reducing the collective invasion, murder, rape, discrimination to a phycological human flaw, ignores the fundamental truth that societies have ”differential access to stereotypes/fantasies which people have and the differential use that they make of them.”¹⁰

Donna Landry and Gerald Maclean argue “the material conditions of a woman’s oppression…are themselves historically specific and therefore cannot be framed in terms of gender alone¹¹.” This gives an excellent lens to critique the rise of gender-critical thought, certainly when based in feminist theory. The importance of historical, social, and material complexity in how feminism has developed is paramount, a fact which those in the gender-critical camps tend to exclude.

Upon applying this type of material thinking to the modern anti-trans rhetoric, it can quickly be dismantled. The TERF’s goal is to collapse the nuances of power, womanhood, and society to ensure that all trans-affirming policies are projected in the simplest light possible, enraging as easily as possible; in other words, being exclusionary from inception, not unlike misogyny. It is not possible for gender-critical thought to include transgender people - no matter how much one tries shoehorning empty quotes - simply as a consequence of the default exclusionary principle outlined.

Reminded though Landry and Maclean’s words, it is clear that gender has never been separated from power, race, class, colonialism, sexuality, etc., nor could it ever be. To accurately describe, discuss, and opine on gender, it must always be viewed through a complex lens not boiled down to binary sex.

Colonial white woman have experienced this interplay of many cultural aspects. When viewed through the lens of a dehumanised slave, they seem protected from the colonial tyranny inflicted by the man, whilst simultaneously being oppressed when viewed through the lens of the dominating male. This illustrates that “womanhood” much like gender cannot be separated from society and certainly cannot be simply linked to sex - the same must apply for “manhood” too. Automatically linking womanhood (or manhood) to biology is weaponisation via essentialism, a trait common throughout euro-colonial history¹².

Gender-critical theory fundamentally ignores the historical view by insisting on rigidity of anatomy or chromosomes, debunked by fact both on biological and social grounds across time and culture. The gender-critical approach not only erases transgender people, but disregards the way in which all categories of society have been constructed, often through great strife, including the “womanhood” which it seeks to protect.

ECtHR

The view of the European Court on Human Rights (ECtHR) is that recognising gender reassignment is required to satisfy protections under Article 8(1) and Article 12. This view was solidified by a UK citizen Christine Goodwin in Goodwin v United Kingdom (2002) 35 EHRR 18¹³ showing that the UK has always been a leader in gender-equality, despite the current (2026) rhetoric.

The Court’s underlining view was that there was a European consensus forming around transsexuality that needed matching legislation. Goodwin v UK (2002), Bellinger vs Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21, and other judgements required signatory governments to base gender as a social construct, rather than on biology. As previously discussed, gender is a social construct by definition which can and should be adapted as necessary. Those who live within the society have the power and responsibility to maintain it. This view, however, is contradictory to the euro-colonial history surrounding gender, including the low bar European colonial culture set relating to the treatment of women.

Due to the Court’s lack of recognition (or perhaps despite) the history of the treatment of those who do not conform to a male dominated, binary gender world-view, may have been forced into doing something they (at large) did not want. This is in no way to suggest it was not vital or necessary for these acts and rights to be granted legal protections, on the contrary. Rather, it is possible to reason for these seemingly unprovoked attacks by gender-critical theorists have exposed underlying anger against what the populist would often cry “unelected courts telling us what do to”. However misplaced, gender-critical thought could be seen as a rebellion against the libertarian worldview which dominated much of post-war Europe; first it was women, then homosexuals (things are better generally for the LGBTQIA+ community, although there is work to do here too), now the focus on the trans-community. As each community strengthens, both socially and legally, those who seek to oppress must find a new victim.

Equality and Human Rights Commission (UK)

It is important to note, the current state of the UK’s Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is continually evolving, meaning information here may be out of date even between the period between research and publication.

There is an evidence based admission of guilt from the EHRC by only allowing a single world-view to have a say in transgender policies¹⁴. It would appear ”The TERFs have invaded”. However, it could be argued that the LGBTQIA+ community let this one slip the net, so to speak. With the rise of populist views, the LGBTQIA+ community must keep on top of an ever-increasing attack surface. Populism is hard to push back against for this very reason, but it is essential that the wider LGBTQIA+ community comes together and ensures organisations such as the EHRC are not allowed to fall into “idle hands”. Just because the individual might be “safe” the community at large may not be.

This pushback is beginning to happen; the community must celebrate the work of people like Robin Moira White, Barrister-at-Law who’s recently published SOME GUIDELINES On the INCLUSION of transgender persons in SERVICES and WORKPLACES seeks to add legal foundation to the otherwise legally unfounded ECHR publication draft Code of Practice on Goods and Services. In the document Moira White highlights that a vacuum can ”become an unfortunate breeding ground for rumour and misinformation.¹⁵” illustrating the need for the conversation to be two-sided And prompt.

In SOME GUIDELINES On the INCLUSION of transgender persons in SERVICES and WORKPLACES White is at pains to criticise the single-mindedness of the EHRC when viewing the issue of transgender exclusion through a narrow lens. Fairly, this single-lens view has stemmed from the Supreme Court, but has not been challenged by the organisations entrusted with such responsibility, namely the EHRC. White also highlights that the Equality Act is “intended to a shield not a sword¹⁶“ but appears to be used as one. In other words, the Act can’t legally force the provision of sex-segregated toilets, as those in the TERF camp would believe. This is supported by the fact the EHRC’s publications on the topic is only guidance.

When careful, sensible, legal analysis is performed (as has been done by White and many others), one can easily see that the scaremongering by the TERF populists is nothing more than that: scaremongering.

Where a trans-exclusionary world-view contradicts the facts

Trans-radical, trans-exclusionary, gender-binary feminists primarily hold the belief that the cisgender female is only discriminated against on the basis of sex assigned at birth. However, factually it holds that discrimination against cisgender women has a varied and complex relationship with gender, race, culture, upbringing, and religion.

In Report of the working committees to the second circuit task force on gender, racial and ethnic fairness in the courts (1997) self-reporting of gender fairness is higher among men (a meagre 3% of men report “seeing” gender bias) than women or minorities (between 40% and 60% reporting being subject to or witnessing gender bias)¹⁷. Thus highlighting the well known imbalance of world-views between men and women in the workplace and judicial system in the US. It should be highlighted this report was from 1997, a time when LGBTQIA+ rights were far from today’s strength.

The indicators of this abuse appear to be centred around this idea of Woman not being as important as men: “(1) being ignored, interrupted or not listened to, (2) helped or coached in a patronising manner” (this would now be called man-splaning), “(3) hearing remarks around sexual orientation and (4) derogatory remands about gender”¹⁸. This highlights the lack of respect that men give to anything “other”. The female judges have a 19-26% chance of seeing (and presumably recognising) gender bias, as compared to only 3-6% of men¹⁸. So, men are more responsible for the bias whilst simultaneously being unable to recognise this in themselves or others.

In ‘Gender critical’ feminism as biopolitical project¹⁹, Fran Amery posits that society should view the TERF movement in a much stricter light; the attempt to “subjugate” the population using biology through political means. This could be viewed as biopolicital-engineering, to further Amery’s point. Using politics to control women has been a successful venture for most euro-colonialists for the last ten centuries. Again, it can be shown that the historical template for acts against women are now being leveraged by some of those very women whose ancestors suffered.

From biological fact it is possible to expose further issues with gender-critical theory: intersex individuals. These individuals are regularly cast to the sidelines in gender-critical theory, despite the fact that intersex variations are well-documented in medical and biological literature.²⁰ Intersex individuals are born with physical sex characteristics that do not fit typical definitions of “male” or “female”, including variations in chromosomes, gonads, hormones, or anatomy.²¹ This can include chromosomal variations such as XXY/Klinefelter syndrome,²² differences in hormone response such as androgen insensitivity syndrome,²³ or differences in genital or reproductive anatomy.²⁴ Estimates vary depending on how intersex is defined, but a widely cited review suggests that sex-development variations may occur in around 2% of births, while narrower definitions produce lower estimates run at 0.1-0.2%.²⁵ Either way, intersex existence alone, no matter what size within the population, demonstrates that biological sex is not always neatly divisible into two fixed categories, challenging the rigid binaries on which gender-critical theory relies.²⁶ Gender critical’s answer is often to treat intersex people as exceptions, anomalies, or “others”, again attempting to divide society into categories that reality itself refuses to keep separate.

Conclusion

After analysis of texts from the 12th century to modern day, the conclusion to be drawn from the facts is simple: gender is a social construct, thereby undermining the foundation of a fixed at birth binary gender theory (commonly described as trans-exclusionary radical feminism or critical-gender theory). One can also conclude from the facts that rights, protections, freedoms, and feminism itself is not a zero-sum game; i.e. one does not preclude the other, in fact can enhance one another when humanity, rather than absolutionism, is the goal.

For a critical mind, one that removes all emotion and personal feelings, it is simple to conclude that the modern gender-critical view is heavily influenced by misogyny supplanted though male-dominated (and often western-leaning) worldviews; ironic given the protections those in the gender-critical or TERF arena purport to demand for cis-women.

References

1. T. Threadgold, Ed., Feminine, masculine and representation. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, 1990. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

2. S. Andermahr, T. Lovell, and C. Wolkowitz, A concise glossary of feminist theory. London: Arnold, 1997 p. 138. ↩

3. S. Andermahr, T. Lovell, and C. Wolkowitz, A concise glossary of feminist theory. London: Arnold, 1997 p. 84. ↩ ↩² ↩³

4. Polity Press, Ed., The Polity reader in gender studies. Cambridge: Polity Press in association with Blackwell Publishers, 1994 pp. 280-282. ↩ ↩² ↩³

5. Concerning men and other papers, pp. 120-123. ↩ ↩²

6. Will Roscoe, Changing Ones: Third and Fourth Genders in Native North America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998). https://archive.org/details/changingonesthir0000rosc ↩

7. Sue-Ellen Jacobs, Wesley Thomas, and Sabine Lang, eds., Two-Spirit People: Native American Gender Identity, Sexuality, and Spirituality (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1997). https://openlibrary.org/works/OL17976005W/Two-Spirit_People ↩

8. Serena Nanda, “The Hijras of India: Cultural and Individual Dimensions of an Institutionalized Third Gender Role,” Journal of Homosexuality 11, no. 3–4 (1986): 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1300/J082v11n03_03 ↩

9. Tom Boellstorff, “Playing Back the Nation: Waria, Indonesian Transvestites,” Cultural Anthropology 19, no. 2 (2004): 159–195. https://doi.org/10.1525/can.2004.19.2.159 ↩

10. R. Lewis and S. Mills, Eds., Feminist postcolonial theory: a reader. New York London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2003, p. 693. ↩ ↩²

11. R. Lewis and S. Mills, Eds., Feminist postcolonial theory: a reader. New York London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2003, p. 694. ↩

12. R. Lewis and S. Mills, Eds., Feminist postcolonial theory: a reader. New York London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2003, p. 697. ↩

13. H. Davis, Human rights law: directions, 5th edition. in Law Trove. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2021, pp. 317-318. ↩

14. “EHRC to ‘ignore 50%’ of trans consultation responses, claim Good Law Project,” EHRC to ‘ignore 50%’ of trans consultation responses, claim Good Law Project. [Online]. Available: https://www.attitude.co.uk/news/equality-and-human-rights-commission-good-law-project-trans-consultation-489644/ ↩

15. Robin Moira White, 2025, “SOME GUIDELINES On the INCLUSION of transgender persons in SERVICES and WORKPLACES Following The Supreme Court judgment in For Women Scotland v Scottish Ministers [2025] SC 16”, p. 2. ↩

16. H. Nicholas, A Trans Man Walks into a Gay Bar: A Journey of Self (and Sexual) Discovery, 1st ed. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers, 2023. ↩

17. “Report of the working committees to the second circuit task force on gender, racial and ethnic fairness in the courts (1997),” Second Circuit Task Force, 1997, p. 60. ↩

18. “Report of the working committees to the second circuit task force on gender, racial and ethnic fairness in the courts (1997),” Second Circuit Task Force, 1997, p. 61. ↩ ↩²

19. ‘Gender critical’ feminism as biopolitical project ↩

20. Peter A. Lee, Christopher P. Houk, S. Faisal Ahmed, and Ieuan A. Hughes, “Consensus Statement on Management of Intersex Disorders,” Pediatrics 118, no. 2 (2006): e488–e500. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2006-0738 ↩

21. Martine Cools et al., “Caring for Individuals with a Difference of Sex Development (DSD): A Consensus Statement,” Nature Reviews Endocrinology 14 (2018): 415–429. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41574-018-0010-8 ↩

22. Marco Bonomi et al., “Klinefelter Syndrome (KS): Genetics, Clinical Phenotype and Hypogonadism,” Journal of Endocrinological Investigation 40 (2017): 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40618-016-0541-6 ↩

23. Ieuan A. Hughes et al., “Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome,” The Lancet 380, no. 9851 (2012): 1419–1428. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60071-3 ↩

24. Phyllis W. Speiser et al., “Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia Due to Steroid 21-Hydroxylase Deficiency: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline,” The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism 103, no. 11 (2018): 4043–4088. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2018-01865 ↩

25. Melanie Blackless et al., “How Sexually Dimorphic Are We? Review and Synthesis,” American Journal of Human Biology 12, no. 2 (2000): 151–166. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-6300(200003/04)12:2%3C151::AID-AJHB1%3E3.0.CO;2-F ↩

26. Claire Ainsworth, “Sex Redefined,” Nature 518 (2015): 288–291. https://doi.org/10.1038/518288a ↩