Oxfam has long touted its dedication to promoting gender equality for women and girls, despite its reputation being marred in recent years by its lax approach to allegations of sexual exploitation of those very groups in places like Haiti.
Imagine my shock, then, at Oxfam’s apparent capitulation to woke virtue-signalling by withdrawing children’s bingo game, ‘Wonder Women’, that celebrates female trailblazers of the past and present from its stores and online, due to apparent ‘concerns’ voiced by transgender and non-binary staff members.
Oxfam was not clear on what exactly these concerns were, but the charity reportedly told the Mail on Sunday that it took the decision because of concerns that it ‘didn’t live up to [their] commitment to respect people of all genders’.
Now, there are numerous theories as to what exact values the game is in opposition to. Could it be the inclusion of gender-critical JK Rowling and Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie amongst the pictures of 48 other inspirational women? If so, how ridiculous a suggestion that is that these women should have their achievements erased from history, especially by a charity that claims to champion women’s rights.
Labour activist and journalist Owen Jones took it upon himself to post a message he received from a reported employee at Oxfam that claimed the game being pulled had nothing to do with this, but was due to the incorrect reference to actor Elliot Page, who has recently transitioned, as a woman.
Interestingly, however, the anonymous individual also did admit that as part of a discussion with head office, it was ‘briefly explained’ that the UK had a ‘massive Terf problem’, (that being the derogatory name used by trans activists to smear gender-critical feminists), and that JK Rowling had a ‘part in it’.
This is of course ignoring the fact that the game also includes individuals such as Emmeline Pankhurst, Rosa Parks and Malala Yousafzai amongst others, but focussing on the issue of Elliot Page for a moment, I fail to see how the inclusion of the actor warrants a transgression by Oxfam, considering the vast majority of Elliot’s established career was as a woman due to them being born a girl, and they only announced their transition in December 2020.
Even then, instead of pulling the game from their stores completely, surely Oxfam could have replaced the outdated copies of the game? Its publisher, Laurence King, said that they had immediately recommissioned an updated copy after Page’s announcement.
Regardless of what the reasons for pulling the game are, one only needs to look to Oxfam’s vague explanation to see that this is yet another example of the comical hand-wringing by the chattering classes.
Oxfam clearly felt it was safer to get rid of the game altogether.
Just look at the way the likes of Professor Kathleen Stock was harangued by intolerant trans activists at Sussex University that demanded she lose her job, simply for daring to express gender critical views, which are a legally protected characteristic in the UK following the landmark tribunal case involving Maya Forstater, whose contract was not renewed for committing the crime of believing in biological sex.
And these concerns are even echoed by volunteers at Oxfam. The Times reported that a volunteer of ten years had handed in her notice at the charity because of the removal of the game, feeling as though ‘women are under attack. We’re [women] not allowed to have a word to ourselves’.
How can this be right? How can it be that celebrations of women are readily erased as though they mean nothing? For many of us, this is more than a game.
If women’s rights are to stand the rest of time, one first needs to accept the existence of biological sex. There’s no question about it.