Oh goodness that article is terrible. At least for once it is written in plain English, so you can follow the thread of illogical leaps, elisions and statements of fact that are anything but.
Indeed, gender comes to stand for, or is linked with, all kinds of imagined “infiltrations” of the national body – migrants, imports, the disruption of local economics through the effects of globalization. Thus “gender” becomes a phantom, sometimes specified as the “devil” itself, a pure force of destruction threatening God’s creation
This bears no resemblance to any GC argument I have ever heard. It is not true that "gender" is linked with arguments about migration (wtf?) or imports (wtff?). And I hardly think anyone is talking about the devil or creationism.
We generally think of sex assignment as happening once, but what if it is a complex and revisable process, reversible in time for those who have been wrongly assigned? To argue this way is not to take a position against science, but only to ask how science and law enter into the social regulation of identity. “But there are two sexes!” Generally, yes, but even the ideals of dimorphism that govern our everyday conceptions of sex are in many ways disputed by science as well as the intersex movement, which has shown how vexed and consequential sex assignment can be.
- To ask what it would mean if sex assignment is a complex, reversible process is as pointless as asking what if I had wings and could fly. I don't and I can't. Sex assignment is not generally complex and not reversible (in time or otherwise). Beyond a thought experiment, what is the purpose of asking things that are totally unrelated to material reality.
- I don't think the "Intersex movement" would appreciate being co-opted into this bilge to start with, but no, the existence of people with disorders of sexual development does not invalidate the sex binary. Not does the idea that we can look at chromosomal or hormonal or phenotypic sex - because for people without DSDs these all match. Moreover, this is entirely irrelevant to gender identity, as there is no evidence whatsoever that trans people are more likely than anyone else to have a DSD. (The Tavistock used to do karyotyping but stopped because they didn't find any evidence of DSDs)
Anti-gender movements are not just reactionary but fascist trends, the kind that support increasingly authoritarian governments. The inconsistency of their arguments and their equal opportunity approach to rhetorical strategies of the left and right, produce a confusing discourse for some, a compelling one for others. But they are typical of fascist movements that twist rationality to suit hyper-nationalist aims.
Oh magic. We're fascists again. Burn us at the stake now for wrong-think. No, I'm not a fascist because I believe in the material reality of biology. That's ridiculous. Nor do I support authoritarian movements or governments. I'm fed up with these words being bandied around to make people recoil from these dangerous ideas (that sex exists and sex matters). The rest of this is just projection.
That's just 3 paragraphs, but the whole article is just like this, with each point repeated at least once. I really really hope Jane Clare Jones gets her red pens out for this, because it's just such nonsense.