Why is it in Vogue for a man to pit women against women?

AFEW years ago I was asked to be a judge on the Woman’s Hour Power List. It was 2015 and former Olympian Bruce Jenner had just been featured on the cover of Vanity Fair, in her new incarnation as a woman, beneath the headline: ‘Call me Caitlyn.’

I must confess, I found Jenner’s story very moving. On a purely human level, I could not help but feel for her. Back then, the idea of being trans was still relatively misunderstood. With the exception of the writer Jan Morris, there weren’t many high-profile individuals and certainly none featured on the front cover of a glossy magazine.

I – along with the other judges – felt that Jenner’s courage was admirable and worthy of note.

Fast forward a few years and another trans woman finds herself at the centre of a controversy, again for her inclusion in a ‘power list’.

Trans cyclist Emily Bridges is the only athlete to have made the cut in September’s ‘Vogue 25’ – a list of notable females. The choice to promote her at the exclusion of countless biological women athletes (not least the Lionesses) has riled many.

‘There are thousands of fabulous female athletes British Vogue could have chosen,’ tweeted Olympic runner Mara Yamauchi. She, along with many others, felt it an affront to women’s sport. And she’s right.

HANG on, I hear you say. Why do I say that, given that I supported Jenner on the Woman’s Hour list all those years ago? After all, both are trans women. Surely if I support one, I support them both?

Not necessarily. Bridges and Jenner may both be trans women but they are very different people who stand for very different things. One is part of a wider mission to weaponise the trans issue in the most divisive of ways. The other is authentic and personal, a woman who has never sought to diminish other women in pursuit of her goals.

On the contrary: Jenner competed at an Olympic level as a man, against other males, winning gold at the 1974 Olympics. Whatever internal struggles she may have been dealing with, she never tried to use her identity to gain an advantage over other women. By contrast, Bridges, a mediocre cyclist in the male category, is determined to compete as a female even though she has inherent and irreversible physical advantages over biological women, having undergone male puberty.

As former Olympian Sharron Davies (a woman who knows all about the transformative powers of testosterone on an athlete’s ability, having lost out on a gold medal to state-sponsored doping during the Cold War) pointed out, she’d be banned from competing if she had ‘as much testosterone in my system as Emily Bridges is allowed’.

Let’s be honest. Bridges – along with others, such as trans swimmer Lia Thomas – are using their trans identities to muscle in on women’s sport. Bridges’ inclusion on this list has nothing to do with ‘championing diversity’ or any of that malarkey. It’s part of a wider culture war on women, a new kind of misogyny expressed via an aggressive form of gender appropriation which seeks to ‘own’ the female experience and deprive biological women not only of their fundamental rights but also their identities. Menstruation, pregnancy, childbirth, breastfeeding – it’s all up for grabs.

Like most people, I have no objection whatsoever to trans women (or men, for that matter). Indeed, I have a lot of respect for them and what they must have to go through.

But what I won’t accept is the promotion of one at the expense of the other. Or virtue signallers such as Vogue’s (soon former) editor Edward Enninful, the man responsible for this list, stirring up trouble for clicks. Fashion has always sought to turn women against themselves, either by making them hate their bodies for not conforming to the standards of (often male) designers, or by dismissing them as too old, too plain, too frumpy. And what is Vogue if not the bible of fashion, preaching this toxic gospel to the faithful whose money or beauty allows them access to the hallowed halls of haute couture?

Now Enninful has gone a step further and turned trans woman against biological woman with his incendiary choice, made all the more pernicious for being dressed up as wokery.

Nonsense. He’s just another man who thinks he can impose his will on women – in this case telling biological women they must accept a biological male in a women-only sporting category.

To quote Jenner herself on this matter, it’s not transphobic or antitrans to think this is madness – it’s just plain common sense.

At the end of the day it’s about protecting the interests of women. And I mean all women. Not just the few lucky enough to be in Vogue.