Dear Councillor Ewin,
I am writing to you in reference to the Mercury article ‘Women’s War of Words’ published Friday 31stMay, 2019 in which you refer to the group Women Speak Tasmania as ascribing to ‘biological essentialism’. I presume that you made this comment on the basis of the group’s definition of what makes someone a female person, namely, their physical body – a biological definition. You noted that biological essentialism ‘goes against every form of feminism’ you’ve heard.
However, your comment ascribing this ideology to Women Speak Tasmania misunderstands what biological essentialism is. ‘Biological Essentialism’ does not refer to defining or making categorisations on the basis of biological references. The term refers to the belief that persons have innate dispositions to certain behaviours, aptitudes, cognitive abilities, instincts or social preferences. You may find this definition from Oxford Reference helpful: https://www.oxfordreference.com/…/authority…
It is an ideology that is often used to ascribe generalised differences between people of different biological categories, in an attempt to make the social differences between those groups seem ‘natural’. For example, it is a biologically essentialist view to believe that female people have inferior spatial reasoning abilities to male people, or that people with black skin are more hardwired to aggression than white people, as a matter of ‘nature’. These beliefs might justify keeping women out of certain professions, or be used to justify the higher numbers of black and indigenous people in prison.
It is also a biologically essentialist view to believe that a person’s personality or some other kind of innate ‘essence’ within them (their gender identity, perhaps?) is a result of their biology. You might also characterise this type of belief as ‘Biological Determinism’ (see here: https://www.oxfordreference.com/…/authority…).
In short, Biological Essentialism and Biological Determinism are both concerned with how human behaviour and personal qualities, not reproductive organs, are determined by biology. If you are determined to reject such ideologies, you might consider questioning the notion that all persons have an innate, hardwired ‘gender identity’.
If you require any further clarification of the appropriate use of these terms, or would like clarification on the position of Women Speak Tasmania in regards to Biological Essentialism, I am happy to assist.
Kind Regards,
Tessa Anne