Feminists Argue Why Biological Gender Matters And What Does It Mean

Even as we wait for the Supreme Court verdict on same-sex marriages, the implications on the 'wife's' rights are a pressing concern too

FEMINISTS are just not winning it anywhere.

Last week, a feminist academic Dr Kathleen Stock, speaking at the student body Oxford Union, was almost booed out when trans activists interrupted her session. Stock, a radical feminist and author of ‘Material Girls: Why Reality Matters for Feminism’, has argued that biological gender matters for feminism, or else women’s safe spaces are threatened to be taken away. Stock insists she is sympathetic to trans rights and is vocally against their discrimination or abuse.

Stock was forced to quit her job at the University of Sussex two years ago thanks to protesters who called her transphobic. Stock joins a long line of TERFs, a woke name by her young activist critics, or an abbreviation for a ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist’.

TERFs speak of feminism without including the rights of trans women, or biological men who identify as women. I had not heard of this term until last year when the Oxford English Dictionary added it describing it as “a feminist whose advocacy of women’s rights excludes (or is thought to exclude) the rights of transgender women. Also more generally: a person whose views on gender identity are (or are considered) hostile to transgender people, or who opposes social and political policies designed to be inclusive of transgender people.”

Kathleen Stock arrives to deliver a speech at the Oxford Union Society, 30 May 2023 (Getty Images)

Much of this argument will apply in India, even as the Supreme Court has reserved its order on same-sex marriages here. There is no doubt in my mind that most of us (arguably other than the families of queer folk) are not really bothered by the sexual choices of others.

Feminists and trans rights

Nobody batted an eyelid when Section 377 was decriminalised in 2018. In fact, the entire country celebrated. Gays, their families, their allies took to the streets. Every single media outlet had the news displayed positively on its front pages. India was so ready to include homosexuals and celebrate them in the mainstream, or at least not have them arrested for sodomy. It’s surprising the law took so long to make up its mind.

It is still unclear how long the current five-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud himself, will take to pass its order on legalising same-sex marriages. If passed, India will only be the second country in Asia to legalise same-sex marriage. The several petitioners and their top-drawer lawyers in our Supreme Court have presented excellent, heart-wrenching and convincing arguments. Then what’s the problem?

There are a few religious groups who are obviously opposing the legalisation. The government of India under Narendra Modi, which in fact is rightly credited for decriminalising homosexuality in 2018, is also in opposition. Team Modi says it has no problem in recognising homosexual relations, but a marriage is between a man and a woman.

India is very, very far from being a country that sees a husband and wife as equal partners.

Its growing number of domestic violence cases, dowry cases, and maintenance petitions in various family courts bear testament to this. Police stations, trial court judges and even several high court judges do not offer an equal division of assets. A woman is lucky if she can stake claim to even a quarter of her husband’s assets, thanks to the innumerable loopholes available to men. In most cases, maintenance awarded is so minuscule, it is impossible to live off.

The woman must prove her husband’s earnings and assets magically, she must also not have “sufficient means” for her own income in order to exercise her rights in maintenance and alimony petitions. Her rights, though are undeniable in Indian courts, are so vague and dependent on the discretion of the judge, they may as well not exist.

I have been asking a bunch of lawyers, some of who are arguing this petition in the apex court, this question about how same-sex marriages stand to affect women’s rights, and I am yet to receive an answer. Perhaps this is also because one cannot predict how the Supreme Court will rule, and whether it will consider a “wife’s” rights in this matter.

I have to state that in no way am I against the legalisation of same-sex marriage, and in no way must it be assumed that this is my argument against it. It is not. It is a query that concerns women’s rights in India and begs consideration.

Homosexuals in India most certainly have it worse. Even though India’s laws protecting women are just fantastic, and incredibly modern, their execution renders them useless. Homosexuals, on the other hand, have no laws protecting their interests, emotional or financial. They cannot be a legal partner, be co-signatories in several security measures, whether joining assets or then the possibility of dividing assets.
Even though they are not considered criminals, their families can choose not to accept a same-sex spouse. If one of the partners dies, the dependent partner may be rendered homeless and penniless.

Heck, they are not even allowed to begin a life together in India. They may not be able to rent or purchase a home together. They may not enjoy tax benefits that “gifts” to immediate family members do. They may have to move countries in order to be socially and financially stable with each other.

So, while same-sex relationships may enjoy their right to love each other, they do not have the right to live with each other. If this truly terrific bench can consider all the permutations and combinations of these issues, India would certainly have a more equal society.
At least on paper.

Views expressed by the author are their own. Feature image from Reuters

Suggested Reading: Trans Rights And Political Backlash: Five Key Moments In History