Abstract
The last few years have seen an explosion in public conversations about how society should accommodate transgender and gender non-conforming people. Which public restrooms should they be allowed to use? What about students in public schools? Should a transgender boy be allowed to compete in (and win) a state wrestling tournament (in Texas) or transgender girls to dominate a state track competition (in Connecticut)? These conversations generally take an accommodationist position: we should determine rules for when and where transgender girls/women and boys/men should be treated in accordance with their gender identity. Yet, as Heath Fogg Davis points out in his thoughtful exploration of the assumptions behind the sex marker and sex separation policies of modern society, Beyond Trans: Does Gender Matter? those conversations usually don’t go far enough.
Society often requires us to mark and segregate ourselves by sex classification. Fogg argues that those practices are often historical artifacts that create harms for everyone, not only for transgender and gender non-conforming people. He focuses on four areas: sex markers on our identity documents, public restrooms, single-sex colleges, and sex segregation in sports. Each is introduced by illustrative stories of real transgender and gender non-conforming individuals faced with unjust treatment and outcomes because of current rules, and each ends with solid policy recommendations for moving us “beyond gender.”
The chapter on identity documents is particularly compelling. Fogg notes: “because the sex markers on our identity documents enable sex-identity discrimination and are not rationally related to the legitimate policy goal of personal identity verification, they should be removed. I make it sound easy. But I know that it’s complicated” (p. 28). It is definitely complicated, but Fogg presents logical arguments, with illustrative examples, to present a strong case, and offers various alternatives to allow governments and other entities to achieve their desired identity verification needs without sex markers on our drivers’ licenses, bus passes, or other documents. The chapter on public restrooms is also strongly argued, although the major policy recommendation (for universal design restrooms that lack sex markers or separation) would only be implemented very slowly, given the lifespan of most public buildings and the likelihood that it would mostly be implemented in new construction.
The discussion of single-sex colleges focuses on women’s colleges, and whether they should require applicants to be women who were identified as female at birth and continue to identify as female (the most restrictive current policy). Are these exclusionary policies necessary for women’s colleges to carry out their institutional missions of fighting institutional sexism in education? Fogg suggests they instead adopt a strategy similar to that adopted by historically Black colleges and universities, rebranding themselves as “historically women’s colleges” (p. 87). Instead of restricting admission based on sex identity, admissions applications could ask prospective students “to reflect upon how their own sex identities relate to the college’s commitment to fighting institutional sexism” (p. 107) This would allow those colleges to open their doors to all people interested in their missions, and eliminate what is developing into a convoluted and inconsistent policy regarding queer students.
Initially, some of the arguments seem naïve. My first read of the chapter on sex-segregated sports struck me as unworkable. I have been a competitive athlete for more than three decades, and my best running and triathlon times were always a reflection of how well against I did other women. If competing against men—even men in my age group and of my approximate size—I doubt I would have done so well in those contests. Comparing myself only to the other women athletes allowed me to distinguish myself in a way that a gender-neutral ranking would not have allowed. But on further reflection, and setting aside my own selfish need for external validation of my athletic abilities, Fogg’s argument took root. Allowing men and women—allowing all people—to complete equally, with distinctions made by size, age, or even androgen levels as appropriate, brings us closer to the larger goal of equality for all athletes. As he notes, building on work by Eileen McDonaugh and Laura Pappano, “sex segregation in sports perpetuates gender stereotypes of female inferiority” (p. 129). Sex segregation in sports is sexist; “it harms all of us by constricting our capacity to say where and with whom we belong in the social scheme of sex” (p. 135).
Such is the subtle power of this book. Fogg makes claims about specific policies that seem unworkable, if only because we are so used to checking those “male or female” boxes on forms, but once they marinate in your subconscious they become more persuasive. The writing is clear and logical, helping readers make their way, eventually, to the eye-opening revelation that perhaps he is correct, and at the very least to the idea that some of our current policies regarding sex markers and segregation are not based on solid arguments and have only tenuous relationships to stated policy goals. The book is powerful and compelling, and guaranteed to spark solid conversations in classrooms. It should also be required reading for advocates and policy makers hoping to move us toward a less sexist and more inclusive society for all individuals.