Defining Women in Law is Very Dangerous for Cis Women

Kansas is the first state attempting legally define women based on their reproductive role. What could possibly go wrong?

by Evan Urquhart

We have good news for anyone who thinks legislation should be based on trolling and bad-faith gotcha questions: Kansas is seeking to define women, in law. Right wing media outlets such as the Washington Times are cheering this step as an important first step towards protecting women’s spaces. Of course the many troubling implications of defining women by their repoductive role have been left conveniently out of frame. Here’s what the Washington Times says:

People with half a brain cell might wonder: If a law is designed to make sure that some spaces are women-only, might it not also be used to make sure that there are spaces where women won’t be allowed? Could the rationale that women aren’t safe in mixed spaces be extended, resulting in resrictions on women’s movements in the name of making sure they’re kept safe? Wasn’t feminism a fight against the idea that women were specially vulnerable and therefore needed to be limited from full equal participation in society, for their own good? Is this really about single-sex spaces, or is it about rolling back women’s rights?

The proposed law in Kansas is not worried with such trifles. It’s also unconcerned with the reality that several intersex and reproductive conditions exist which can result in assigned-female bodies that don’t produce ova, production of which which is required for femaleness under the law.

Setting aside the fact that this definition doesn’t cover all female assigned people, much less all women, there’s a real danger in defining women through their capacity to reproduce. Defining women this way is a step towards enshrining seperate spheres and roles for the sexes, limiting women’s ability to make choices about when and whether they want to have children or not, and to viewing women primarily as vessels for incubating children rather than independent, equal, human beings.

It is also, certainly, incredibly bad for trans people. The explicit purpose is to open the door to bathroom bills and other intrusions into trans people’s ability to live their lives in peace. However there’s a real risk that women who like the idea of discriminating against trans people will find themselves having bargained away their equality, all for the chance to control who is peeing in the next stall.