Column | Identity must also be a debate – now it

Nothing no ‘them / their’ or ‘die / its’ -and also ‘he / him’ and ‘she / her’ are no longer welcome in the White House. Journalists who use such pronouns to indicate themselves in their e-mails will no longer receive an answer, Trumps bite-biting spokesperson Karoline Leavitt only announced.

Yes, because such journalists « don’t care about biological truth » and you can « not trust them to write an honest story, » said Leavitt (« she / her »). A fellow spokesperson informed a reporter who put the test to the sum that he could whistle for answers because the pronouns showed that he « did not understand basic scientific facts ».

It is the umpteenth sadistic ‘anti-woke’ teeth but also an arrogant dogma: we know what ‘science’ says. That in itself is pretending, but the conclusion that you can ignore others who ‘not understand’ it will go even further: that is pure abuse of power.

It shows how much the aggressive anti-transt campaign in the US has since radicalized. You don’t have to be a fan of the reverse dogma (« My existence is not a debate », a slogan used by trans activists) to see this for what it is: an ideological attempt to humiliate trans people and erase their identity.

And the Netherlands? Here the House of Representatives recently accepted a motion that urges the cabinet to withdraw a bill that would make it possible to officially change your gender without the intervention of experts.

That legislative proposal has a turbulent history-it was brought in quite silently and was able to count on a tacit majority for a long time, and here too ‘gender criticism’, internationally driven by radical feminists and by Christian and extreme right-wing organizations that, just like Putin, see modern decadence. Everything about ‘Trans’, once a vignette of progressiveness, is now a battle cry in the cultural war of post-liberal on the right.

Also in civil, conservative circles-such as Pieter Omtzigt’s NSC-there were doubts about whether it is a good idea to base Gender’s official change purely on self-identification. Hence the motion, submitted by the new social contractors: no longer having.

You can find anything about this subject, but the fact that the House of Representatives is now silencing itself through that motion is bizarre and unparluent. The Transgender Network Netherlands, which supports the change in the law, is (despite the fact that ‘my existence is not a debate’) is quite right that it would be disrespectful to withdrawn now without decent parliamentary debate. It does not give this to become this controversial – and made – proposal to remove just as silently as it was once suggested.

Still debating has a disadvantage: it gives the radical right flank the opportunity to ride all the hobby horses on postmodern follies again, up to and including nauseous ‘jokes’ about identifying ‘as a camel’ (Wilders). But it also offers opportunities to deliberate such populist hatred. When is gender mention in documents, medical data or population statistics? What purpose does identification do by the government, and what does it have to make with polite ‘identity’?

From a little more distance, the battle around gender says a lot about how we started talking about ourselves and identity, as an individual and group. Preferably in terms of their own, inner private core or a permanent collective essence. Not in terms of variable, external properties.

That difference is not trivial. Others can join in the conversation about characteristics, but your ‘identity’, everyone must stay away from that, it is completely yours -or from us.

Would it? Your existence is always a debate – with yourself and with others. That deserves respect – also in parliament.

Sjoerd de Jong is editor of NRC. He writes a column every other week at this place.

To share

Mail the editors