Over the last month, the Kansas legislature pushed through anti-trans woman bills HB180 and HB2238. HB180 establishes a “women's bill of rights to provide a meaning of biological sex for purposes of statutory construction.” In other words, the committee outlines terminology to establish a definition of sex in order to address legal discrimination against those assigned female at birth. The second legislation, HB2238, operates to “create fairness in women’s sports” by excluding women assigned male at birth.
Both bills purport to configure parameters for protecting women’s rights. However, the design is less a protection for women, and more an attempt to deny recognition of trans women.
Women assigned female at birth face particular forms of discrimination different from trans women. Similarly, black women assigned female at birth face unique forms of discrimination based on racial and gender dynamics that distinguishes their experiences from white women assigned female. Thus, women’s intersectional identities can impact the methods and forms of discrimination they face based on class, race, age, and original gender identification. However, the Kansas legislature has not embraced the complexity of women or the myriad of discriminations that impact them.
For example, the legislature has an opportunity to pass a bill addressing domestic violence. Domestic violence homicides are a trend that continues to run high in Kansas, according to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. District Judge and former Republican state senator Phil Journey’s exposure to these violent cases in his court prompted him to develop legislative reform bills to curve domestic violence. These bills, however, have not flown through the legislature like HB180 and HB2238. Journey noted in the Kansas Reflector that, “convincing the minimum 63 of 125 representatives, 21 of 40 senators and Gov. Laura Kelly to transform a piece of legislation into law wasn’t easy.”
Ironically, the current state statistics ignores how trans women also experience domestic violence. As UCLA School of Law confirmed, “Transgender people are over four times more likely than cisgender [those whose gender identity aligns to the gender assigned at birth] experience violent victimization, including rape, sexual assault, and aggravated or simple assault, according to a new study by the Williams Institute at UCLA School of Law.”
These contradictions about who needs protection lie at the heart of both bills. Neither legislation addresses the violence all women (Trans and assigned female at birth) face, nor provides the real protection that all women need. The result is not new laws which protect women, but legislation that denies trans identity and civil rights by posing “women’s” rights as oppositional.
Indeed, this strategy of contradictory rights is a regular tool in conservative politics. The tactic has its roots in the latter 1960s when southern conservatives attempted to avoid school desegregation by claiming private Christian schools were a religious right. In its current form, these “counter rights” arguments have taken shape to turn back the clock on women’s reproductive rights, avoid teaching black history, and deny queer rights.
Kansans need genuine discussions about the needs of all women, no matter their birth assignment, race, age, or class. Many individuals are suffering from abusive violence, and our elected officials have the capacity to protect all Kansan women. The first step is to drop the pretense, and support actual protections for all women.
Nishani Frazier is Associate Professor of History and American Studies at the University of Kansas.