Iowa’s Democrats are huddling at their state convention this weekend to make the state party’s constitution more inclusive. And there’s an interesting twist— one of the offending provisions was originally implemented as a feminist measure.
A handful of delegates and members of the State Central Committee are meeting to “rectify” party rules that left Sabri Sky feeling uncomfortable at a past convention, according to the Iowa City Press-Citizen. Sky identifies as gender fluid.
Described by the Press-Citizen as a “well-meaning, but outdated, part of the constitution,” reformers are looking to change a provision that “requires an equal balance of men and women on the State Central Committee” to instead “require that no more than half of the committee ever be from one gender identity.”
“Another measure would outline a way to address the national Democratic Party’s Code, which also doesn’t recognize other gender identities beyond male and female,” the paper reported. “Two other amendments would make other wording changes to ensure the overall constitution and code reflect a recognition of the full spectrum of gender identity.”
Recognizing gender identity over biological sex has been the priority of progressives nationally in recent years, so it’s not surprising that Democratic efforts to do this would reach Iowa.
But here’s where the report gets interesting. “Ironically, much of the ‘problem’ language for the Democratic Party stems out of earlier efforts to ensure women were represented in the party system,” the outlet noted. “A strict requirement of four men and four women was designed to ensure women had their place at the table.”
Delegate Rebecca Barrett is quoted, explaining, “The current system has been in place for a while, and it dates back to a kind of a ‘second-wave feminist’ approach. I understand why they were doing it. But I think that is kind of an old view of gender and needs to be updated.”
Feminists fought and won such protections for women, now subject to revision by progressives looking to accommodate new concerns about gender identity. As Sex Scandal author Ashley McGuire said in an interview with the Washington Examiner last year, “Our laws prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex, but what happens to women when sex is not a recognized or valid category?”
The consequences of those broader efforts to replace sex with gender identity could be bigger than people realize. This case reflects on a smaller scale how proponents of the push to recognize gender identity may increasingly confront achievements (like Title IX) their predecessors in the feminist movement once worked to advance.
