Consent is king, queen, and everything
One of the primary lessons I teach whenever I give consent lessons is that consent is everything. Not just a yes or a no, but an informed choice to proceed with an action. Consent comes in many forms, sexual, medical, and personal proximity are the most common ones discussed in society at large. The notion that you can give consent is a fundamental feminist principle, for your bodily autonomy and mental health are paramount to your wellbeing. If you cannot consent, or your consent is absent, then any other person has no right to enter your space or touch your body. Which is why much of the current exclusionary feminist’s notion of consent are so flawed.
Their first objection is trans women sharing communal female spaces. To them the idea of sharing space with a trans woman, or indeed a non-binary person, is an affront to their personal dignity because they do not consent for those trans women to enter their communal spaces. They forget that communal spaces are shared by a wide range of women, many of whom are trans inclusionary. It begs the question can another other person assign or withdraw consent for the body whole, such that one exclusionary woman in a room full of inclusive women can override their feelings about trans folk. Exclusionary feminists argue that they have the right to do this, but that is not how consent works. One person cannot override the body whole unless there is a urgent need to prevent danger, and unless you treat trans women as sexual predators waiting to happen then that danger is phantom in the exclusionary feminist’s head.
A second objection they raise is the inability of trans children to consent to any medical procedures they are about to undertake. On the surface this seems reasonable, yet in reality all children have a degree of bodily autonomy regardless of their parents wishes. Blood transfusions, organ transplants, cancer treatments, indeed any invasive medical intervention on a child’s body requires a degree of understanding and consent on the child’s part. At no point will doctors simply override a child’s will unless there is a live saving need to do so. Trans medication follows the same principle, cautious, and only used when safe and necessary.
And this brings me to the third issue with consent that exclusionary feminists raise: the cotton ceiling. This is the notion that trans lesbians have the right to sleep with cis women regardless of the cis woman’s genital preference. I will reiterate that genital preference is perfectly valid, as is the right to say no to any prospective partner. It is not okay to tar anyone just because they are trans. No means no, and simply leave it at that. That the cotton ceiling is even a thing is partly down to trans activists arguing genital preference is transphobic, and partly down to exclusionary feminists seizing on those arguments. No-one has the right to override anyone else’s bodily autonomy, period. N-one has the right to insist on sex, or attempt to harangue someone into having sex with them. Yet, if the no then becomes transphobic abuse simply for asking, then that abuse is wrong.
Finally, we have the notion that exclusionary feminists do not consent to trans women using women and female at all. They see trans women as trans identified males, as if those semantics overcome the personal understanding of any trans woman. For exclusionary feminists, it is simply impossible for womankind to consent to trans women being a systemic thing, that trans folk are category errors due to irreducible biology. It is this final form of consent that is the most pernicious, because it is the foundation of their entire belief structure. If they cannot give consent for trans women to be women, then no-one else should be able to give their consent either.
This fourfold notion of consent underpins most trans exclusionary arguments. It is narcissistic, venal, and projects ideas onto society at large. They accuse trans people of being non-consensual on the one hand, and then turn round and state that trans kids cannot consent to their treatment on the other. They gaslight any trans inclusive person, attack power structures that uphold trans rights, and act as the drop of ink in the water that wishes to preclude all trans women from even existing and functioning in society at large. They take consent away from everyone else, policing sexuality, bodily autonomy, communal spaces, and medical practices. How dare anyone consent to trans people existing in society and validating trans women as women. If they cannot consent, then no-one can.
And this is the fundamental flaw in exclusionary feminist ideology. They project consent onto everyone else, denying that anyone can possibly consent to trans folk simply wishing to live their lives in peace. It is not enough to have private chat rooms and toxic Twitter threads, exclusionary feminists seek, by vitriol and guile, to impose a form of consent on society twisted in their own image. They hold consent to be queen, yet it is warped consent that only they can provide. Which is why it will ultimately fail.
