An Interview with Spanish Lawyer Paula Fraga Arias
““Where feminist theory sees structural oppression, queer theory sees individual identity””
Paula Fraga Arias
We are delighted to feature an interview with Spanish feminist lawyer Paula Fraga Arias. She is a representative of Contra el Borrado de las Mujeres (Against the Erasure of Women), an international alliance bringing together Spanish-speaking feminists in order to fight against the erasure of women’s rights resulting from the conflict between sex-based rights and ‘gender identity’ policies. Dominican writer and FiLiA Spokeswoman Raquel Rosario Sánchez interviewed her about her roots in the women’s liberation movement, her career as a feminist lawyer and this exciting new project.
Raquel Rosario Sanchez: Dear Paula, thank you so much for granting this interview to FiLiA. You are a recognised feminist lawyer in Spain but could you give our audience a little bit more information about your trajectory?
Paula Fraga Arias: I am a lawyer with a degree in Economic Rights, and a Masters in European Union Law. I am currently preparing to start a career in the judiciary. My path has always been allied to women’s rights and to feminism.
My primary motivation for studying law is the belief that we need feminists inside the system. As a lawyer or as a judge, I will bring in the feminist perspective - a legal obligation – in the application and interpretation of the law.
RRS: Which came first in life – a passion for feminism or a passion for the law?
PFA: Feminism, but in a roundabout way. I remember being an adolescent reading ‘La Flor Del Desierto’, the story of Waris Dari, a female survivor of FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). It left a profound impression on me, and I began to reflect on the different realities that we live, simply for having been born women.
However, it wasn’t until I finished my law degree that I started to study feminist theory in depth, and, from there, to be able to articulate a feminist discourse. Feminism should be read and studied, in line with any other political theory.
Without knowing the theory, there’s no coherent political practise. As such, I came first to feminism, but it wasn’t until I’d finished my law degree that I educated myself fully in feminism.
Since then, I have committed myself to bring together both facets of my life so that my legal practice is geared towards protecting women’s rights.
RRS: As a legal professional, what does it mean to state that women’s rights are based on sex?
PFA: This is a legal recognition of women’s reality. The same rights and liberties should be guaranteed for everyone, and to achieve that we need to remove the obstacles in our way. Being born a woman determines where we fit within the world’s structures, in particular as subordinates in the sexual hierarchy of patriarchy. For the rights of women across the world, this is an obstacle, and the law must, in order to eradicate it, recognise this sexual inequality, perpetuated by gender.
Moreover, we have to highlight that, until queer theory broke into the legal system, it was never necessary to emphasize that women's rights are based on our sex, because it is common sense and based on the evidence.
Now, as legal professionals, we are made to signpost and to legally define this category of “sex-based rights”. This is not because it is a new category. As I noted, to be born female is the basis of all women’s politics and always has been. But it is because we must confront this prejudicial substitution of “sex” with “gender identity” that it needs to be emphasised again.
RRS: What do you consider to be the problem with replacing women’s sex-based rights with gender identity rights?
PFA: First we must define ‘gender identity’. Gender is set in the stereotypes and functions assigned to women for having been born female, and men for having been born male, which we learn and internalise through the different socialisation of the sexes.
Gender is the rocky outcrop that gives safe harbour to the sexual subordination of women and the violence wrought upon us under patriarchy. That is how feminist theory defines it.
However, antifeminist and sexist theories – like queer theory – define gender as people’s internal life or a display of personality, and so they refer to a ‘gender identity’. Where feminist theory sees structural oppression, queer theory sees individual identity.
And this is what is being institutionalised through identity laws. The first problem with this substitution is that it does not fights against what we need to see abolished, but instead it reinforces it and protects it.
The legal eradication of sex, as a category, has dire consequences for women. To say that any male who identifies as a woman, and who with nothing more than their own declaration has be recognised as such, undermines women’s rights and compromises our spaces. A concrete example: categories of women’s sports are being placed at risk if trans (wo)men being accepted as competitors, putting at stake women’s right to compete on a level playing field and their physical safety.
In general terms, we can say that substituting sex-based rights for gender-based rights is a legal aberration, with important, prejudicial, practical implications for all women. It renders useless both any positive sexual discrimination and any public policies to fight sexual inequality.
RRS: At some point, you decided to speak out against this replacement. What was the moment that motivated you to speak publicly about this? What inspired you?
PFA: Rather than a single moment, it was watching the media and online discourse, day after day. Transgender discourse, or as I’d prefer to put it, the unscientific, irrational postulating of queer theory motivated me to speak out. The queer theory argument that particularly worried me, and still does, is that women are somehow privileged.
Consequently, under patriarchy, it is men who overwhelmingly kill women, rape women, exploit women (sexually and reproductively), they force marriages on us and genitally mutilate us, just for being female. Yet there is a posh, post-modern activism that argues that, whilst we are suffering these harsh realities, dedicates itself to calling us privileged. This is on top of the accusations of transphobia against women who are simply talking about their bodies. How often are we accused of transphobia simply for speaking about bodily realities?
How many times have we seen ourselves accused of transphobia just for speaking about menstruation or pregnancy, under the guise of “men – women who have self-identified as men – also menstruate and give birth”?
I had simply had enough, and decided to call out this slow eradication of ‘women’ - alongside other women that I admire greatly, yet who believed they were alone in thinking this way.
Reading your work Raquel, for Tribuna Feminista, and the work of women like Michelle Morales and Laura Lecuona constituted a determining factor for me. Your voices gave me the strength and the arguments to counter. And now I hope to pass this on to other women in the hope that they too will join the fight.
PFA: What’s been the reaction of Spanish feminists to your opinions? What’s been the reaction of the trans community?
PFA: The reaction from feminists has been great. Full of support and recognition. Many talk to me about how they daren’t speak out on the issue for fear of professional and personal reprisals, and of the virulent attacks on behalf of queer theory advocates. I am convinced that the vast majority of these women will end up speaking publicly, and still more will become part of feminist collectives wanting to abolish ‘gender’.
Transactivism is badly named because you can’t call harassing women activism. The reaction from queer and transgender groups against me has been virulent. They refuse to debate, full stop. They have tried to discredit my work with personal attacks and insults. When I published an article that was critical of queer theory, they started a bullying campaign on social media that lasted days, and I’ve had threats of both violence and death on numerous occasions.
“Transactivism” is deeply misogynist, both in theory and in practise. In theory, because it is founded in, and defends, sexist ideas like ‘gender identity’ and that women have a ‘cis-privilege’; and in practise because any woman who doesn’t agree with their ideas is harassed, reviled and threatened. They try to intimidate us, to restrict our freedom of expression and to silence our more than reasonable demands. Thankfully, many of us refuse to give in to them.
RRS: What motivates you to continue? In other words, how do you find the strength to carry on despite the attacks?
PFA: Justice inspires me. I know it sounds ‘heroic’, but I know I’m standing up for what is right and women’s rights are what move me to action. A better society is always worth fighting for. To honour our female ancestors, for ourselves, and for the women still to come. My strength comes both from this strong belief, and from the much-appreciated support of my fellow women, my feminist sisters.
RRS: Have you discussed your concerns about gender identity policies with your colleagues in the law profession? What has been the response of lawyers, male and female, to the subject?
PFA: Without exception, all the legal professionals who know about these laws – of both sexes – have expressed concern. Their biggest worry is how it could affect the Ley Orgánica de Violencia de Género (our law against sexist violence). The criminal outcome of certain offences could be changed, simply by a man declaring that he now identifies as a woman. Or they could just stop viewing gender as an aggravating factor in cases of assaults by men on women.
In essence, and because of questions like these, these new concepts could undermine the certainty of law, which is a fundamental principle and the backbone of our legal system.
RRS: Tell us about a project that you’re involved in, Contra el Borrado de las Mujeres (Against the Erasure of Women)? What is it and how did it begin?
PFA: It’s arisen, specifically, because there’s an urgent need to put the brakes on a Spanish Self-Determination of Sexual and Gender Identity law project, which could be approved during this legislature.
In the previous legislature, there were two proposals with more or less the same substance, which were rendered ineffective when the Cortes Generales (High Court) closed, without them having been approved.
Knowing what was in these previous proposals, knowing that this legislature wants to approve a gender identity law, and, moreover, seeing how they are introducing queer terminology in other laws, women from various groups, and with different political beliefs, decided to unite for this project, the Alianza Contra el Borrado de las Mujeres (Alliance Against the Erasure of Women).
Our main aims are to paralyse legislation which undermine women’s rights; and to expose to society (for whom this debate remains completely alien) exactly what the legal, practical and political implications of these laws mean in practise.
RRS: Recently an official statement, written by the Spanish Socialist Party and addressed to its membership, in which they address precisely this conflict, was filtered to the media. What is the importance of this document and what is the current state of the debate within the party?
PFA: At first, the document offered some relief to feminists, because it expressed our concerns for how these laws legally erase the ‘sex’ category, and what the consequences of this would be. The PSOE currently governs Spain, in coalition with other political parties, and in order to stop this law it is essential for them to come out against queer theory and its introduction into the legal system. The statement did just that.
However, these law proposals have been introduced by the Equality Minister, which is being directed by another, smaller party within the coalition, called Unidas Podemos. Therefore, Podemos and the PSOE have different views on the matter.
The trouble is that PSOE is not being entirely clear. As I said, the argument which filtered through to the membership offered the first moment of relief, a salve. But a few days later some LGTBQ+ leaders within the party and some PSOE politicians with Government positions promised to approve a sex self-identification law. The statement has not been revoked or contradicted, though. So, it would appear that within PSOE, there are different ideologies on the matter.
It is worth remembering that it was the PSOE party that approved laws aimed at eradicating sexual violence against women, and that started the introduction of equality policies. At the end of the day, if they support this law to allow the self-determination of sex, whether by voting in favour or by abstaining, they would be traitors to themselves, acting against their own commitment to women’s rights and the feminist movement.
Feminist women are warning them: we will not vote for people who compromise our rights. No government pact can rise above the fact that women’s rights are inalienable and non-negotiable.
RRS: How do you see the future of the debate regarding sex-based rights and ‘gender identity’ policies?
PFA: I am hopeful that people are increasingly aware of our position, and beginning to understand it. The debate has gone well beyond the feminist movement and is starting a social debate. This is happening thanks to the endeavours of many feminists.
There has also been a media focus on the debate, thanks to issues like the expulsion of the Partido Feminista de España de Izquierda Unidad (the United Left’s Feminist Party), or the recent controversy over JK Rowling’s defence of women’s rights.
There is a lot of disinformation and mistrust. The debate is being made deliberately difficult because anyone who speaks up in favour of women’s rights gets accused of transphobia. They try to silence us with this so that we cannot be heard, but it’s not working. Slowly but surely, increasing number of media outlets, are starting to echo our demands. Society is waking up to what’s being taken away and to how deeply that will affect them.
Personally, I have witnessed a fairly substantial difference from the time I started speaking out. People are losing the fear of speaking out and of being falsely accused of phobias. I always say: little by little, we grow more and shut up less. I am convinced that with perseverance we are helping people understand how vulnerable women’s rights are right now, how close we are to taking a backward step, and exactly what we are facing.
RRS: Is there anything that you would like to express to the English-speaking feminists reading this?
PFA: I have watched up close the feminist fight to stop the proposed reforms to Gender Recognition Act, which intended to write into law that a man, through a simple declaration, could be legally considered a woman. I am aware of what you have achieved in England and Wales, and welcome that this reform has been officially dropped by the government. As such, sex-based protections continue to be legally guaranteed and protected.
First of all, I have to congratulate you all for achieving such an important objective, which is the result of sustained hard work. Spanish feminists are following in your footsteps, learning from the political strategies you have developed.
I am proud to know that I have such brave and valuable colleagues doing battle in other countries. This is further proof of the international nature of feminism and the need to create a common agenda for emancipation.
To all the sisters who have worked so hard, on behalf of Spain, I send you both gratitude and congratulations.
Thank you very much to Paula for this interview. We would also like to thank our wonderful FiLiA volunteer who translated this interview but has chosen to remain anonymous. Thank you both!