Sex-Based Rights and Gender Identity: An Interview with Raquel Rosario Sánchez

FiLiA Spokeswoman, Raquel Rosario Sánchez, was interviewed by Costa Rican journalist Ivannia Salazar for the ABC Spanish Newspaper’s three-part series covering sex-based rights and ‘gender identity’ policies. The original articles, published on the 7th of December, examined the British government's failed proposals for sex self-identification policies, on the medicalisation of underage people and on Keira Bell’s victory before the High Court.

Here’s the English translation of Raquel Rosario Sánchez’s interview:

Ivannia Salazar: Why do feminist organizations such as FiLiA consider that these policies “erase” women? What is the current situation of this topic in the United Kingdom?

Raquel Rosario Sánchez: FiLiA is a wide-ranging feminist organisation. We are recognised primarily for organising the largest annual feminist conference in Europe. But beyond that, we work in collaboration with other feminist organisations, on issues such as violence against women and girls, child marriage, the exploitation of women through surrogacy, prostitution, the rights of female political prisoners in many countries, etc.

We became involved in the conflict between sex-based rights and the government’s proposals regarding self-identification of sex because we recognised that, through these policies, something that women in England fought hard and over decades, was being undermined. We also noted that, through the promotion of these legislative proposals, a dangerous misogyny and undemocratic practices were being normalised.

Gender is a patriarchal mechanism to justify the subjugation of women to benefit the domination of men. To argue, or worse yet, to legislate that it is an innate essence which lies within every human being is to hold women and girls responsible for our own oppression. We respect and promote the rights of all trans people to a life free from violence and discrimination, but that right does not extend to erasing the gains made by women or to subsume our struggle.

IS: Why do you think the United Kingdom’s attempt to amend the Gender Recognition Act 2004 to include sex self-identification ultimately failed?

RRS: In the UK, the law recognises sex-based rights, sex discrimination and the need for single-sex spaces, under certain circumstances. The attempts to eliminate those feminist conquests have failed because women around the country stood up in defense of their hard-won rights. New groups emerged, similar to how Contra el Borrado de las Mujeres (Against the Erasure of Women) has emerged in Spain.

Women from all social strata, in all their diversity, participated in a multitude of actions to defend their rights: they held meetings to raise awareness about the dangers of these government proposals, they persisted until they scheduled meetings with all the pertinent institutions, they wrote articles detailing the problem, they alerted their relatives and co-workers... 

It became an avalanche that could not be stopped, even in the midst of a highly hostile climate where every woman who raised her voice was defamed and threatened. It was the collective voice of thousands of women that alerted society and managed to influence public opinion.

The UK government realised that their perhaps well-intentioned legislative proposal was not as simple as they claimed to be, and that women were not going to keep quiet while their rights were trampled upon. That being said, the legislative proposals that were defeated in September 2020 represent only one aspect of the problem. We still have to combat the infiltration of these public policies at the local level, in the media, in schools… there is still a lot of work to do, but thankfully, too many women are already alert and energised to fight in the long term.

IS: Was FiLiA directly involved in that discussion?

RRS: We sent our objections to the government’s public consultation and eventually got a meeting. FiLiA has almost a decade of organising, working on all kinds of topics that concern women and girls, and it was the sense of alarm regarding this conflict that galvanised us to raise our voice against the normalisation of abuse against women that is perpetuated by means of sex self-determination policies. 

In other words, we are not an organisation that exists exclusively to address this issue. But the unfolding of events over the years made it clear to us that we had a duty to take a stand. We did it in support of sex-based rights, because those are much needed victories that thousands of UK women have fought, over decades.

Important to note: it is not that these institutions invite us to policy meetings because they like us. When the conservative government of Theresa May drew up its proposals, it only consulted with trans activists, and they tried to approve its amendments to the GRA 2004 without fuss or anyone noticing. But women became active on this issue, formed their own feminist organisations, and in the end made so much noise that the government had no choice but to listen to those objections.

IS: Oftentimes, feminists who oppose these public policies, both in the UK and in Spain, are accused of transphobia. What is your opinion about that?

RRS: Defaming feminists by calling them “transphobic” is one of the many tactics used to intimidate women who speak out in favour of our rights. Any woman who does not recite the creed of ‘gender identity’ (or sex self-determination) policies is accused of the same. 

Beyond the smears, we are concerned about the hostile climate that is fomented by trans activists in workplaces, in universities and within political parties, so that women feel scared and self-censor themselves. This intimidation should not take place within a democratic society.

We will continue to defend women’s rights to male-free prisons, refuges, scientific research and sports, regardless of whatever names some people call us. We will continue to defend that statistics should be segregated by sex, that no crime committed by men should ever be classified as having being committed by a woman and that no child is born “in the wrong body.” 

IS: It is striking that underage girls are more likely than boys to decide to “transition” to the opposite sex. What do you think is the reason behind that?

RRS: It is perfectly normal for boys and girls to reject the stereotypes of femininity and masculinity that are assigned to them, based on their sex. But in a patriarchal system, the pressure exerted on girls, who are increasingly sexualised in a culture saturated with pornography and objectification, is greater. The gender dysphoria that a very small number of girls and boys experience requires thoughtful and careful analysis, not agreements with invested lobbyists behind closed doors.

In England, an increase of 4,000% was detected in less than 10 years, with regard to girls being referred for alleged gender problems to the Tavistock “gender clinic”. This clinic is currently being sued by Keira Bell, a 23-year-old woman who underwent hormonal treatment to stop her puberty at 16, cross-sex hormones at 17, a mastectomy at 20 and desisted from it all shortly after. 

A 16-year-old teenager cannot legally get a tattoo or buy alcohol, how can they be allowed to consent to experimental hormonal treatments?

A disturbing percentage of the girls subjected to these treatments have suffered traumatic experiences such as the death of a parent, are victims of sexual abuse, are on the autism spectrum or present comorbidities such as depression. It is worrisome that, instead of halting this medical experiment on children, the trans lobby is determined to cement into law policies that encourage these treatments, even though their long-term repercussions remain unknown.

IS: How do these policies affect the rights of females to childhood?

RRS: FiLiA advocates in favour of the right of children to the free development of their personality. And obviously, the right to the protection of their health. That includes children’s right not to have sexist stereotypes imposed on either girls or boys. 

Teaching girls who reject dolls and the colour pink that a boy must inhabit trapped inside her is a very filthy form of sexism because it limits her freedom to be and to express herself, free of stereotypes.

We cannot stand against child marriage or any form of abuse against children, while promoting experimental hormonal treatments in the bodies of minors, when to date we do not even know the effect that these treatments will have on their cognitive development or on their long-term physical health. 

We seek to expand the possibilities and opportunities of children, not reinforce harmful stereotypes. On this point, we do not intend to give one inch.

IS: What is behind the lobbying that is intent on changing legislation and even language? I am referring to organizations that refer to women as “people who menstruate” or “people with a uterus”?

RRS: The insistence on abolishing the words that exist to define women and girls is how we realize that this issue is not about promoting human rights at all - it is about abolishing women’s rights. 

There is no need to abandon our knowledge of biological sex, which is immutable and inhabits every cell of our body. On the contrary, we need greater protections for sex-based rights and increased scientific research on sex as a biological variable (SABV), that is: the sexual differences between the bodies of males and females.

The language of “birthing people" and “vagina owners” seeks to reduce both men and women into one category: people. But today we know that assuming that men and women are the same has dire consequences for women’s health, because women’s bodies respond differently to disease and drug treatment than men’s bodies. This is a public health issue. To ignore female biology is a matter of life and death for women and girls.

We can clearly see the misogyny underlying this problem by observing that it is only women being robbed of their words and dehumanised through language. When was the last time you read an article or saw an institution refer to men as “people with testicles,” “prostate carriers,” or “those with a penis”?

IS: Are you surprised that on this issue women’s rights campaigners, gay and lesbian organisations are in agreement with a conservative government? It was the Boris Johnson government that rejected the proposed modification of the law, whereas in Spain it is a left-wing government proposing it.

RRS: The most lethal blow conservatism can inflict against women’s rights is to support sex self-identification and ‘gender identity’ policies, which is why it is striking to see political parties that call themselves feminists supporting them. Through these policies, conservatives could automatically neutralise each and every single one of the gains feminists have made to date, in terms of legal rights and societal recognition as human beings independent of men. In Spain, some members of the far-right political party Vox have already realised this, and this should give people pause. 

This is a problem created exclusively by the left which affects the whole of society, around the world, regardless of political identification.

Proposals in favour of sex self-determination in England were pushed by the conservative government of Theresa May, with the backing of all other political parties. Eventually, it was the same Conservative Party that dropped them. Little by little, with determination, energy and courage, we have been raising awareness in various sectors. Hopefully, with time, in Spain you can achieve the same.

NOTE: Thank you to the ABC newspaper and journalist Ivannia Salazar for reaching out to FiLiA. After the interview was conducted, Keira Bell (along with Mrs A) won the Judicial Review against the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust. You can read FiLiA’s statement on this matter here.