If you believe in a patriarchal society, and the entitlement to male privilege that attends it, then the biological sex of babies is highly significant (‘Gender ideology’ is all around us – but it’s not what the Tories say it is, 19 January). But if you endorse a more equal society that isn’t based on male superiority and female inferiority, then the biological sex of babies is less consequential.
One feminist response to patriarchy has been to point out that the social judgment involved in believing in a patriarchal society logically comes before believing in the significance placed on biological sex.
Finn Mackay’s swipe at our Conservative government is well placed. But it doesn’t do much to clarify the debate about trans identities. Mackay lumps together “trans, transgender and gender non-conforming identities” because that’s what the government’s draft guidance for schools does. Some trans advocates reinforce the binary between male and female biological sex, aligning them with patriarchal society. In contrast, gender fluidity aligns with the feminist response to patriarchy outlined above – that these are social questions, not biological ones.
Biology in itself can never determine social values, because social questions are always contestable, and challenges to social norms require political determination. The social limits to be placed on children questioning their gender is a social and political matter. Finn Mackay, as a trans advocate, does not recognise that.
Dr Raia Browning
Oxford
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
