Conservatism around sexuality and gender roles is surprisingly on the rise within liberal democracies. While this is happening, feminists are divided on issues such as trans women.
Amneris Chaparro: I believe that being a woman is not just about the body, a type of experience, or certain biological signs. The differences within feminism respond to a question with no single answer: what is a woman? Now, there is a historical need to recognize invisible and marginalized subjects, placed in the position of otherness, of being different and seen as inferior, such as trans women, who are linked to the feminine. The tension always has to do with women because, curiously, no one has any problem with trans men; they are not part of the public discourse. What do we do with trans women who come to feminism deeply wounded, victims of violence marked on their bodies seen as feminized? They are not women in the biological sense but because of the cultural construction of gender, of what is socially considered acceptable because of having a body of a certain sex. Feminist positions that exclude them, bordering with transphobia, make biology the only determining factor in being a woman. We need open-mindedness, humility, listening, and the creation of spaces for dialogue and true liberation. Sometimes it is valid to change one’s mind and remember that being a feminist who excludes trans women in some way can be a violation of human rights.
Ivabelle Arrollo: We are experiencing a social crisis of identities: what it means to be a woman or a man. There is a social need to construct stable, fixed identities, which clash with the current diversification of ways of being among citizens. Hegemonic masculinity is winning: order, clarity, firmness, efficiency, and resolve are valued, as exemplified by figures such as Trump, Putin, and Bukele. Considering this, what issues should feminism defend today in our country and around the world? In other words, is it still about the body, is it still about political rights? Is it still about equality among all citizens of a society, or are we already talking about something else? Are we talking about human rights for all, or are we focusing on internal discussions within feminism? In the midst of the rise of illiberal right-wing movements, we are not only facing divisions over the issue of overcoming biology as the basis for social roles; there is also a call for a traditional type of femininity, with women questioning “radical feminism” and asserting that women find power, fulfillment, and their greatest potential in domestic work, in the home, in emotions, and in motherhood. This orientation includes academics such as the German Gabriela Kuby, with her Catholic values, who has become the bible of conservatism. For her part, in the American academic world, Christine Hoff Sommers adheres to a feminism that gives a voice even to the most conservative women.
Speaking of giving everyone a voice, let’s address sex work.
Amneris Chaparro: The abolitionist position seeks to eradicate sex work, based on the fact that there is a clear power relationship in that most people involved in sex work are women and most people who consume it are men. The regulationist position seeks its legalization, with guaranteed rights and social security, and brings to the forefront the voices of women who choose to engage in sex work, which would be very different from human trafficking, a form of slavery. In any case, where should societies move forward? Not only with regard to sex workers, but with regard to what women mean. How should they behave? Does the abolitionist stance imply regulating women’s behavior on the basis that sex should not have a price? Are we facing paternalism? In Mexico City, it was decided to legalize sex work as a job, which prevents those who engage in it from being persecuted by anyone or by the police.
Ivabelle Arroyo: What about sexual pleasure? A sex worker can fully enjoy her body and also earn money. What must be prevented is violence and trafficking networks, such as those that exist in Mexico.
Let’s continue with the body: surrogacy.
Amneris Chaparro: When we talk about surrogacy, we leave out the word “motherhood” and even talk about wombs for hire: women’s bodies are seen as objects. Opponents claim that this is exploitation of women’s bodies, of racialized and lower-class women, but the figures vary from country to country. Ukrainian women were in high demand because of their phenotype. In any case: what is being rented? What is being surrogated? Is it the sale of babies? We have these conceptual tensions and also political tensions of race and class. In Mexico, some states allow couples to hire the services of a woman willing to undergo fertility treatments, whether with her own eggs or not, but there is certainly a legal limbo. A payment is made during the pregnancy and also at the end, depending on the country, and if people have to adopt the child that is born, it can be complicated. Looking at this issue from my feminist perspective, I think it is significant to consider that giving birth to a child does not in itself constitute an act of motherhood. Motherhood is a social practice, not simply a biological one. There are ways of mothering that do not involve the body; women mother people we have not given birth to, sometimes even our husbands.
Ivabelle Arrollo: It is important to distinguish between the right to one’s own body and the surrogacy industry. I equate this situation with labor regulation. There are people who exploit themselves by working more than 12 hours a day, even though there is legislation that limits the working day. As an individual, you can work 20 hours a day if you want to. What is unacceptable is that an industry does not allow you to go to the bathroom or eat. The same is true in this case. These are individual decisions that must be protected at a minimum. Legislation with a basic floor to protect individual rights and prevent abuse by an industry is important, rather than establishing a ban that will certainly generate a black market.
Do issues related to the body receive more attention than social structures that generate inequality, such as poverty? I am referring to physical, sexual, and psychological violence: micro-machismo, mansplaining, harassment, sexual abuse, and femicide.
Ivabelle Arroyo: I completely agree. Although the issues you mention are a manifestation of social structures, sometimes they do not allow us to dwell on them. When we talk about microaggressions, we can get bogged down in linguistic discussions, but what we see in everyday life is that women are more vulnerable and, in fact, there is violence that takes their lives in our country and around the world. When we talk about femicide, we are talking about a specific criminal category, an achievement of feminist organizations, which sought to deter potential perpetrators. However, Roxana Gutiérrez published a study (¿Son efectivas las medidas legislativas para combatir los asesinatos de mujeres?) on the impact of legal changes in Mexico regarding abortion, femicide, and unilateral divorce and found that violence has not decreased: the determining variable is impunity, as in the case of murdered men and journalists.
Amneris Chaparro: The body is key. The slogans of the youngest girls reveal this: “My body is mine, I have autonomy, not with girls, girls are not to be touched.” In other words, there is a centrality of the body that is not necessarily a centrality that erases structures. There is a “neoliberal” feminist discourse that asserts that a single person can take on large and powerful structures. What makes feminicide so dramatic is not only the fact of murdering a woman because of her gender, but also the impunity that accompanies that murder. In all the feminist marches, we continue to have families of feminicide victims who have been demanding justice for years because there is none. Of course, we need to organize from the grassroots, beyond marches or cyberactivism, to combat underlying problems such as precariousness, in the style, for example, of the seamstresses’ union in the 1980s.
The current government has placed special emphasis on the direct transfer of resources to women living in poverty. Could these transfers be considered clientelism, or do they address underlying problems?
Amneris Chaparro: I remember the “Salario Rosa” (Pink Salary) program during the six-year term of former governor Alfredo del Mazo in the State of Mexico. A sum of money was given to housewives via a card (I would say in its favor that domestic work was recognized as work worthy of remuneration); courses on entrepreneurship were also offered. There was no evaluation or follow-up, so it is not possible to verify the real impact of this policy. When the government changes, the policy changes or is eliminated. Another issue is the budget: that of the new Secretariat for Women is not very different from that of the now defunct Institute. What we see on the surface is one thing, but what lies beneath is quite another, and this applies to the federal government as well as to the states and municipalities.
Ivabelle Arrollo: Direct transfers are clientelistic: they do not eliminate the gender gap because they are not designed to do so. The current government understands inequalities as a consequence of the concerted actions of economic sectors; consequently, the fight against inequality is understood as a vindication against privileged and minority groups that caused this inequality, so specific policies for women or for other types of injustices are not important. One example is the issue of wage equality. In other words, it is not only necessary to prevent violence against women, but also to place women on an equal footing with men in society. Women’s political participation cannot be limited to token representation; in other words, women do not advance just because there is a woman in the National Palace. Wage gaps, shelters, daycare centers, full-time schools, and care programs are public policies that must be institutionalized, not removed and implemented at will. I believe they are important because they are for all social classes, not just for the poorest women. This populist government, which considers itself left-wing, operates on the basis of a divide between the elite and the people, rather than shared inequality between sectors. When these governments or administrations change, the support that is given based solely on poverty and not on other inequalities and injustices also disappears. Sometimes the micro-discussions within feminism in Mexico prevent us from seeing that there are many battles that have not been won, such as equal pay and specific public policies for the very important issue of care. Any government that claims to be left-wing and to support women would have to think about and reflect that in its budgets, as Amneris pointed out, and the current one does not.
