logo
Against the narrowing definition of womanhood

Against the narrowing definition of womanhood

Indian Express3 days ago

It takes courage to write — especially stories that challenge the status quo. It takes even more courage to stand on a global platform and speak your truth. When Dutch author Yael van der Wouden stepped up to accept the Women's Prize for Fiction on a balmy June night in London, she demonstrated bravery in spades. 'Please be gentle and kind,' she murmured, bracing for her audience's reaction, before coming out as intersex. That she had to make the plea at all is the real indictment.
'I was a girl until I turned 13,' she told the 800 people gathered. 'And then, as I hit puberty, all that was supposed to happen did not quite happen. And if it did happen, it happened too much. And all at once, my girlhood became an uncertain fact… hormonally, I am intersex.'
She need not have worried about how her revelation would be received. The cheer that followed was louder than the one that greeted her name. In that moment, van der Wouden, who had just been awarded a prize that celebrates 'women's voices,' redefined what the term could mean. 'In the few precious moments here on stage, I am receiving truly the greatest honour of my life as a woman, presenting to you as a woman and accepting this women's prize,' she said. 'And that is because of every single trans person who's fought for healthcare, who changed the system, the law, societal standards themselves. I stand on their shoulders.'
The timing of her words and the stage she chose to say them from lend her words particular weight. Just two months ago, the UK Supreme Court ruled that the definition of 'woman' refers strictly to biological sex. The case, brought by campaign group For Women Scotland, argued that sex-based protections must apply only to those 'born female.' The ruling, though framed by the court as not being a victory for one side over another, has major implications for how sex and gender are treated across public life, and for who gets counted as a woman under the law.
It is not just the UK. In the US, the rollback of transgender rights is gaining speed under a second Trump administration. This week, the US Supreme Court ruled that states can constitutionally restrict gender-transition care for minors, the latest blow in a coordinated, nationwide effort to curtail trans rights in education, healthcare, sport, and public life.
More than two dozen Republican-led states have already passed laws restricting care or limiting trans people's participation in public life. Trump has aligned federal policy with a rigid 'biological sex' framework, barred trans people from serving in the military, and ordered that passports reflect sex assigned at birth. Though there have been some legal victories against these moves, the political momentum has shifted in the West.
In a world where womanhood is increasingly being policed by legal and cultural gatekeepers, van der Wouden's declaration is powerful and political.
'Won't thrill you too much with the specifics,' she said, 'but the long and the short of it is that hormonally I am intersex. This little fact defined my life throughout my teens until I advocated for the healthcare that I needed, the surgery and the hormones that I needed, which not all intersex people need. Not all intersex people feel at odds with their gender presentation.'
The statement is telling. She reminded the audience that intersex persons are not a theoretical category. They exist with real needs and identities. More importantly, not everyone has homogeneous needs, wants, and identities. The point is not conformity, but autonomy.
Her prize-winning debut novel, The Safekeep, is about many things: Female relationships and rivalries, repression, queer love, the Second World War, the lingering legacy of war, memory and forgetfulness, and the meaning of home. However, for Wouden it is a story of collective compliance and redemption: 'The conversation [my novel] has entered into felt all the more important to me in the face of violence in Gaza, in the West Bank, and… the violence my own queer and trans community faces worldwide,' she said. However, there is a silver lining, much like her protagonist, Isabel, it is never too late to see the collective error of our ways and make amends.
aishwarya.khosla@indianexpress.com

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

On Pride Day, Canada, Brazil, and Europe back ‘rights of LGBTQI people' — US silent
On Pride Day, Canada, Brazil, and Europe back ‘rights of LGBTQI people' — US silent

Indian Express

time41 minutes ago

  • Indian Express

On Pride Day, Canada, Brazil, and Europe back ‘rights of LGBTQI people' — US silent

On Saturday, to mark Pride Day, the foreign ministries of Canada, Brazil, Australia, and a number of European countries issued a joint statement reaffirming their commitment to the rights of LGBTQIA+ people. The message was clear: rising hate speech, criminalisation, and discrimination against LGBTQ+ communities worldwide must be condemned. According to Reuters, the statement read: 'We are speaking and acting as one to champion the rights of LGBTQI people.' It added: 'At a time when hate speech and hate crimes are on the rise, and in view of efforts to strip LGBTQI people of their rights, we reject all forms of violence, criminalisation, stigmatisation or discrimination, which constitute human rights violations.' The statement was backed by countries including Spain, Belgium, Colombia, and Ireland. The international statement comes amid growing concern that regression in one country can embolden anti-LGBTQ movements elsewhere. Activists particularly fear worsening conditions in countries like Uganda and Ghana, where LGBTQ communities already face harsh legal and social environments. Absent from the list of signatories was the United States. The Trump administration did not publicly endorse or sign onto the joint declaration, a move that raised eyebrows among human rights advocates and foreign policy observers. 'As of today, it will henceforth be the official policy of the United States government that there are only two genders, male and female,' said President Donald Trump at his inauguration speech on January 20. This proclamation was followed by a slew of executive orders which withdrew several Biden era initiatives that prevented discrimination on the basis of gender identity or sexual orientation, and aimed to enhance the recognition and visibility of LGBTQIA+ persons. On the same day as the Pride Day statement, tens of thousands of demonstrators in Budapest took to the streets to protest Hungary's controversial law passed in March, which allows local authorities to ban Pride events. The law, introduced by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán's government, has faced backlash from both civil society and the European Union. Rainbow flags and chants of solidarity filled the capital as citizens defied government efforts to suppress public expressions of LGBTQIA+ identity. (With inputs from Reuters)

US Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites
US Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

Time of India

time42 minutes ago

  • Time of India

US Supreme Court upholds childproofing porn sites

Academy Empower your mind, elevate your skills The US Supreme Court handed down a decision on June 27, 2025, that will reshape how states protect children online. In a case assessing a Texas law requiring age verification to access porn sites, the court created a new legal path that makes it easier for states to craft laws regulating what kids see and do on the a 6-3 decision, the court ruled in Free Speech Coalition Inc. v. Paxton that Texas' law obligating porn sites to block access to underage users is constitutional. The law requires pornographic websites to verify users' ages - for example by making users scan and upload their driver's license - before granting access to content that is deemed obscene for minors but not majority on the court rejected both the porn industry's argument for strict scrutiny - the toughest legal test that requires the government to prove a law is absolutely necessary - and Texas' argument for mere rational basis review, which requires only a rational connection between the law's legitimate aims and its Justice Clarence Thomas ' opinion established intermediate scrutiny, a middle ground that requires laws to serve important government interests without being overly burdensome, as the appropriate court's reasoning hinged on characterizing the law as only "incidentally" burdening adults' First Amendment rights. Since minors have no constitutional right to access pornography, the state can require age verification to prevent that unprotected activity. Any burden on adults is, according to the ruling, merely a side effect of this legitimate court also pointed to dramatic technological changes since earlier similar laws were struck down in the 1990s and early 2000s. Back then, only 2 in 5 households had internet access, mostly through slow dial-up connections on desktop 95 per cent of teens carry smartphones with constant internet access to massive libraries of content. Porn site Pornhub alone published over 150 years of new material in 2019. The court argued that earlier decisions "could not have conceived of these developments," making age verification more necessary than judges could have imagined decades importantly for future legislation, the court embraced an "ordinary and appropriate means" doctrine: When states have authority to govern an area, they may use traditional methods to exercise that power. Since age verification is common for alcohol and tobacco, tattoos and piercings, firearms, driver's licenses and voting, the court held that it's similarly appropriate for regulating minors' access to sexual key takeaway: When states are trying to keep kids away from certain types of content that kids have no legal right to see anyway, requiring age verification is an ordinary and appropriate way to enforce that decision could resolve a fundamental enforcement problem in child privacy laws. Current laws like the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act protect children only when companies have actual knowledge a user is under 13. But platforms routinely avoid this requirement by not asking users' ages or letting them enter whatever age they want. Without age verification, there's no actual knowledge and thus no privacy Supreme Court 's reasoning changes this dynamic. Since the court emphasized that children lack the same constitutional rights as adults regarding certain protections, states may now be able to require age verification before data collection. California's Age-Appropriate Design Code and similar state privacy laws would gain substantially more regulatory power under this social media platforms could face more restrictions. Several states have tried to limit how social media platforms interact with minors. Florida recently banned kids under 14 from having social media accounts entirely, while other states have targeted specific features such as endless scrolling or push notifications designed to keep kids Supreme Court's reasoning could protect laws that require age verification before kids can use certain platform features, such as direct messaging with strangers or livestreaming. However, laws that try to block kids from seeing general social media content would still face tough legal challenges, since that content is typically protected speech for decision also supports state laws regulating how minors interact with app stores and gaming platforms. Minors generally can't enter binding contracts without parental consent in the physical world, so states could require the same legislation such as the App Store Accountability Act would require parental approval before kids can download apps or agree to terms of service. States have also considered restrictions on "loot boxes" - digital gambling-like features - and surprise in-app purchases that can result in massive charges to states already require an ID to buy lottery tickets or enter casinos, requiring age verification before kids can spend money on digital gambling mechanics follows the court's this decision doesn't give states free rein to regulate the internet. The court's reasoning applies to content that children have no legal right to access in the first place, specifically sexually explicit material. For most online content such as news, educational materials, general entertainment and political discussions, both adults and kids have constitutional rights to trying to age-gate this protected content would still likely face the strict scrutiny's standard and be struck down, but what online content and experiences underage users are constitutionally entitled to is not advocates worry that while the "obscene for minors" standard in this case appears legally narrow, states will try to expand it or use similar reasoning to classify LGBTQ+-related educational content, health resources or community support materials as inherently sexual and inappropriate for court also emphasized that even under this more permissive standard, laws still have to be reasonable. Age verification requirements that are overly burdensome, sweep too broadly or create serious privacy problems could still be ruled court's decision in this case gives state lawmakers much more room to effectively regulate how online platforms interact with children, but I believe successful laws will need to be carefully parents worried about their kids' online safety, this could mean more tools and protections. For tech companies, it likely means more compliance requirements and age verification systems. And for the broader internet, it represents a significant shift toward treating online spaces more like physical ones, where people have long accepted that some doors require showing ID to enter.

51-49 Senate vote: Three Republicans who said 'no' to Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill
51-49 Senate vote: Three Republicans who said 'no' to Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill

Time of India

timean hour ago

  • Time of India

51-49 Senate vote: Three Republicans who said 'no' to Trump's 'Big Beautiful' bill

Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky(left), US President Donald Trump (middle), Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina (right) Three Republican senators—Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin—broke ranks on Saturday late-night senate session as the chamber voted 51–49 to advance President Donald Trump's sweeping One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Tillis and Paul opposed the motion outright, while Johnson initially voted no before switching after negotiations. Tillis cited concerns over deep Medicaid cuts, warning of adverse impacts on healthcare access in his state. Paul objected to a provision raising the national debt ceiling by USD 5 trillion. Johnson changed his vote following closed-door talks that addressed his deficit concerns. The nearly 940-page bill seeks to extend USD 3.8 trillion in Trump-era tax breaks, add new exemptions including no federal taxes on tips, and allocate USD 350 billion for national security and immigration enforcement. It proposes significant cuts to Medicaid, food stamps, and green energy programs to offset costs. A revised provision includes a USD 25 billion fund for rural hospitals, aimed at mitigating concerns over Medicaid provider tax reductions. The bill also raises the SALT deduction cap to USD 40,000 for five years and increases the national debt limit. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the bill could result in 11.8 million more uninsured Americans by 2034. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like local network access control Esseps Learn More Undo It estimates food aid would drop for 3 million recipients. The wealthiest earners would see a USD 12,000 tax cut, while the poorest households could lose USD 1,600 annually. On Sunday, President Trump described the Senate's procedural clearance as a "great victory." "Tonight we saw a GREAT VICTORY in the Senate with the GREAT, BIG, BEAUTIFUL BILL," he posted on Truth Social. He thanked Republican senators Rick Scott, Mike Lee, Ron Johnson, and Cynthia Lummis for their support. "They, along with all of the other Republican Patriots who voted for the Bill, are people who truly love our Country!" Trump wrote. He pledged to work with them to advance his economic agenda, citing goals to secure the border, reduce spending, and protect Second Amendment rights. In a separate post, Trump added, "VERY PROUD OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY TONIGHT. GOD BLESS YOU ALL!" The bill was released late Friday night. Debate in the Senate is expected to continue through the weekend, with multiple amendments and votes ahead. If passed, the legislation will return to the House for final approval before heading to Trump's desk. Also read | Donald Trump hails 'great victory' as his spending bill squeezes through Senate for debate

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store