What if the most insidious form of reproductive control wasn’t a dystopian state forcing sterilization, but a quiet, bureaucratic erasure—one that masquerades as protection, as safety, as *care*? Feminism, a movement born from the ashes of patriarchal control over women’s bodies, now finds itself at a paradoxical crossroads. The same ideology that once fought for bodily autonomy is being weaponized to police the futures of trans and nonbinary people, cloaking its violence in the language of feminist concern. This isn’t just a betrayal of solidarity—it’s a new eugenics, dressed in the robes of liberation.
The Feminist Paradox: Liberation or New Chains?
Feminism has always been a battleground, a site of both radical defiance and co-optation. But today, a troubling trend emerges: the same feminists who once railed against the state dictating who could reproduce are now advocating for laws that do precisely that—just with a different target. Anti-trans legislation, particularly those bills masquerading as “protections” for women, doesn’t just restrict trans bodies; it reifies the idea that reproductive futures belong only to a narrow, cisnormative ideal. The irony? These laws don’t liberate women—they chain them to a myth of purity, where the only acceptable womb is a cis one.
Consider the language: “protecting women’s spaces,” “safeguarding female biology,” “preserving reproductive rights.” These phrases sound noble, even urgent. But they’re Trojan horses, smuggling in the same old eugenic logic that once deemed certain bodies unfit for parenthood. The difference now? The targets are trans men, nonbinary people, and intersex individuals—those whose existence disrupts the neat binary of who “should” reproduce. Feminism, in this iteration, isn’t fighting the system; it’s becoming the system’s most enthusiastic enforcer.
Bodily Autonomy: A Right for Some, a Privilege for Others
Feminism’s rallying cry—*my body, my choice*—has never been universally applied. While cis women fight for access to abortion, trans men and nonbinary people are being denied even the most basic recognition of their bodily autonomy. Laws that ban gender-affirming care for minors don’t just strip away medical options; they erase the possibility of future parenthood for those who might one day want it. These aren’t just attacks on gender identity—they’re attacks on reproductive futures, full stop.
And let’s be clear: this isn’t about safety. It’s about control. The same legislators who claim to protect women from “male predators” in bathrooms are the ones stripping trans youth of the right to exist in their own skin. The same feminists who decry the criminalization of abortion are silent when trans people are criminalized for seeking healthcare. The message is unmistakable: some bodies are sacred, others are disposable. Feminism, in this form, isn’t intersectional—it’s a hierarchy, with cis women at the top.
The Eugenic Roots of “Protection”
Eugenics isn’t a relic of the past; it’s a living, breathing ideology that adapts to new targets. The early 20th century’s obsession with “purity” gave way to forced sterilizations of disabled people, Indigenous communities, and people of color. Today, the focus has shifted to trans bodies, but the logic remains the same: certain lives are deemed unworthy of reproduction, and the state must intervene to prevent them. Anti-trans legislation isn’t just about bathrooms or sports—it’s about ensuring that only the “right” kind of bodies contribute to the future.
Feminists who support these laws are unwittingly reviving this legacy. By framing trans exclusion as a feminist victory, they’re participating in a system that has always policed who gets to be a parent. The difference now? The policing is done in the name of liberation, not domination. It’s a perverse twist—feminism, the movement that fought for women’s right to choose, now dictates who gets to be a woman in the first place.
The Illusion of Safety: Who Really Benefits?
There’s a seductive lie in the idea that anti-trans laws make women safer. But safety from what, exactly? From trans women in bathrooms? From nonbinary people in shelters? The data tells a different story: the real threats to women’s safety come from cis men—partners, strangers, law enforcement. Yet the legislative energy is spent on policing the most marginalized, not protecting the vulnerable. This isn’t feminism. It’s scapegoating.
The focus on trans bodies is a distraction, a way to avoid confronting the systemic failures that leave women unsafe. It’s easier to blame a trans woman for a man’s violence than to demand real accountability from the institutions that enable it. Feminism, in this form, isn’t about justice—it’s about spectacle, about performative outrage that serves no one but the powerful.
Reproductive Futures: Who Gets to Dream?
What does it mean when a movement that once fought for the right to dream of motherhood now tells trans people that their dreams don’t matter? Anti-trans legislation doesn’t just restrict access to healthcare—it shatters the possibility of future families. For trans men who want to carry a pregnancy, for nonbinary people who might one day want to parent, these laws are a death sentence. They don’t just deny bodily autonomy; they deny the very idea of a future where trans lives are valued.
This isn’t just a political issue—it’s a human one. Reproductive justice isn’t about who can or can’t have children; it’s about who gets to decide. And right now, the decision is being made by those who see trans bodies as threats, not as part of the fabric of life. Feminism, if it’s to mean anything at all, must reject this. It must remember that liberation isn’t a zero-sum game. The right to exist isn’t a privilege to be granted—it’s a fundamental truth.
What’s Next? The Fight for a Truly Inclusive Feminism
The question isn’t whether feminism can survive this betrayal—it’s whether it will. The movement has always been a battleground, a place where old ideas die hard and new ones struggle to be born. But if feminism is to mean anything in the 21st century, it must confront this paradox head-on. It must reject the eugenic logic that masquerades as care. It must center the most marginalized, not police them. And it must remember that liberation isn’t a hierarchy—it’s a chorus.
The future isn’t cis. It isn’t binary. It’s messy, it’s beautiful, and it belongs to everyone. The question is: will feminism be part of that future, or will it cling to the past, becoming just another chain in the long history of bodies policed and futures erased?
