It’s been a good week for misogyny. We had the Archbishop of York presenting the misogynist case against marriage equality. We also saw registration open for RadFem 2012, a “feminist” conference limiting participation to “women born as women living as women”. While at first glance it may seem that the issues here are homophobia and transphobia respectively, both are driven by deeply held misogynist beliefs.
John Sentamu’s piece is vague by necessity: if he were to actually spell out his arguments, it would become very clear very quickly that rather than “speak the truth in love” as he claims to do, his position is one of deep-seated misogyny and sexism. He argues that men and women are different and “one man, one woman marriage” respects and accommodates those differences in the best possible way – that extending marriage to same-sex couples would somehow undermine this, even if existing marriages of individuals would not, he admits, be negatively affected. Quoth the Archbishop,

The family is designed to meet the different needs of its different members in different ways. It is the model of the just society that responds intelligently to differences rather than treating everyone the same.

Note, first of all the use of the word “family”. The church has long claimed ownership of the concept of marriage, but the above is clearly an attempt to also define “family” the way it suits the church – one man, one woman, married to each other. In one sentence, John Sentamu has denied the families of the 1.7 million children growing up with cohabiting parents, the 2.9 million being raised by single mothers and the 300,000 being raised by single fathers. (Source, PDF, Table 2.5) Nevermind those of us cohabiting and childless, for our families too do not live up to the Archbishop’s standards.
And what of those “different needs” he speaks of? How exactly are men and women different in a way that is met by the “one man, one woman marriage” set-up, that justifies making that set-up exclusive to heterosexuals? Or is it perhaps that Sentamu wonders, if we let two people of the same sex marry, how he will know which one to chain to the cooker?

But there is another view, based on the complementary nature of men and women. In short, should there be equality between the sexes because a woman can do anything a man can do or because a good society needs the different perspectives of women and men equally?

Here is a revelation for the Archbishop: It is not that men and women are different; it is that individuals are different that matters. Yet in his deeply misogynist world view, Sentamu seeks to define women’s – and frankly men’s – roles and contributions to “a good society” based solely on their sex. A good society should seek to enable all individuals within it to fulfill their potential. It must not limit what any of them can do (and that includes whom they choose to commit to in a legally recognised relationship if we are to have such things) based on their reproductive organs.
Speaking of reproductive organs, the organisers of RadFem 2012 have really outdone themselves. Originally restricted to “biological women”, the phrasing was quickly changed to “women born as women living as women”. The words “reproductively female” were also brandished at one point, and I hope I don’t need to spell out quite how problematic that is. While I have some limited sympathy for the desire to create a women-only space, let us be clear on one thing: There is nothing radical about buying into the gender binary.
The language used by these so-called radical feminists reminds me of nothing more than this vile piece of hate speech in which Irish right-wing columnist Kevin Myers feels so threatened in his masculinity that he needs to define other people’s gender identities for them. Choice quote:

[T]he obstetric revelations about this pseudo-male were accompanied by examples of other “men” who have given birth, beginning with Thomas Beattie of Oregon, who is a serial non-man, having given birth to three children, and Yuval Topper, an Israeli “man” who also had a baby, and Scott Moore — and here, I’m afraid we truly enter a quite phantasmagorical world — a Californian who lives with “his husband”, and who gave birth to a child in 2010.

Defining people’s identities and roles in life by their reproductive organs is what men like Kevin Myers do – it’s what the patriarchy does. It is sexism and misogyny of the worst kind and has no place in feminism, radical or otherwise. Here’s a radical suggestions for the organisers of RadFem 2012: Step away from biological determinism and the gender binary and treat people as people. We’d all be better off for that.