As ironic as it is, what we often resist tends to persist. This contradiction appears time and time again during National Women’s Month. In the pursuit of liberation from the oppressors, we become the oppressors of liberation. For a time dedicated to honoring women, we end up dishonoring some by turning the observance into a kind of survival of the fittest, excluding those who don’t meet certain biological requirements—most notably, trans women. We argue over who qualifies as a woman and, in doing so, recreate the very system we’ve long tried to dismantle: the patriarchal ideology. It’s a belief system that seeks dominance over others, creating a hierarchy that reduces women to their reproductive functions.

Before we stand for anything, we must first understand what we are standing for. In the Philippines, March was officially institutionalized as National Women’s Month in 1989 and is led annually by the Philippine Commission on Women (PCW). The observance celebrates women’s achievements throughout history while addressing critical issues concerning gender equality and women’s rights. Currently, the commission follows its eight-year campaign (2023–2028), “WE for Gender Equality and Inclusive Society.” In this slogan, “WE” stands for Women and Everyone, emphasizing that achieving gender equality requires collective effort. “Gender Equality” envisions a society where rights and opportunities are not limited by gender, while “Inclusive Society” promotes a community that embraces people from different sectors, identities, and backgrounds.

So what does this mean for trans women? It means they are very much part of the conversation that some cis women attempt to exclude them from. The experiences of a trans woman may differ from those of cisgender or queer women, but many of these struggles overlap. Recognizing the experiences of trans women is not meant to diminish the lived realities of cis women; rather, it expands the conversation about what women face in society. To fully understand these overlapping struggles, however, we must examine the concept of intersectionality.

In 1989, legal scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw introduced the framework of Intersectional Feminism to explain how systems of discrimination—such as sexism, racism, classism, and transphobia—interact with one another. These systems don’t operate independently; they overlap and shape individuals’ experiences in complex ways. Intersectionality emphasizes that not every woman experiences discrimination in the same way; some experience multiple forms of prejudice at once. A trans woman, for instance, may encounter discrimination that cannot be understood by examining sexism or transphobia separately. Recognizing this reality reveals that women’s struggles are not isolated—they are interconnected.

Despite this, debates about exclusion persist. Some argue that trans women should instead be recognized during Pride Month or Transgender Awareness Month, insisting that National Women’s Month should remain exclusive to cis women. Yet this argument misunderstands the nature of feminist advocacy. Pride movements themselves have long recognized that the fight for LGBTQ+ rights intersects with the fight for women’s rights. In many cases, homophobia and transphobia stem from the same patriarchal expectations about gender.

Another argument raised by some cis women is the claim that National Women’s Month acts as a “birthday” celebration for them—one where cis women blow out the candles while trans women simply applaud from the sidelines. This analogy fails to hold up. If celebrations were meant only for those directly represented, then the only day anyone would celebrate would be their own birthday. Observances such as Women’s Month exist precisely to recognize broader struggles and shared histories.

In many ways, harm directed at trans women also harms cis women. A clear example can be seen in the belief that National Women’s Month should be reserved only for those who meet the narrow biological criteria. This thinking excludes many women, not just trans women. There are women who are infertile, women who choose not to have children, women who are intersex, women in menopause, and women who have undergone hysterectomies. Womanhood has never existed as a single biological template. Yet many women unknowingly reproduce the same patriarchal assumptions they seek to escape, repeating bioessentialist arguments that reduce their identity to their biology.

This pattern also appears in the language used during debates about trans inclusion. Some women respond to trans women with remarks such as “Sayo na ‘tong [health issue] ko,” referring to conditions like Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS), Endometriosis, or Dysmenorrhea. Yet using medical conditions as rhetorical weapons trivializes the lived experiences of women who actually struggle with them. Medical misogyny remains a real and persistent issue, with many women still facing difficulty receiving proper diagnosis and treatment. Invoking these conditions only to dismiss trans women does not elevate women’s health issues—it reduces them to arguments in a debate.

Reducing women to what their reproductive systems are capable of is precisely the thinking feminism has fought against for generations. Patriarchal systems have long defined women primarily through their bodies—through expectations surrounding reproduction, domestic roles, and obedience to social norms. Feminist movements emerged to challenge this framework, asserting that women are individuals whose identities and experiences extend far beyond biological functions. When womanhood is reduced solely to biology, the same restrictive logic feminism seeks to dismantle is quietly reproduced.

Another common defense for excluding trans women is the language of “boundaries.” Some cis women argue that allowing trans women to participate in National Women’s Month crosses an imaginary line that must be protected. Yet this reasoning misunderstands the very spirit of the observance. Women’s Month itself emerged from decades of feminist advocacy aimed at dismantling the boundaries that historically confined women—barriers in education, employment, politics, and society. The observance exists precisely because women refused to accept those limitations. To now invoke “boundaries” as justification for exclusion contradicts the movement’s very purpose. Whether one is comfortable with it or not, Women’s Month was designed to challenge restrictions and expand recognition, not to reinforce the same barriers feminism has spent generations trying to dismantle.

We should never be so liberated, we forget how it was to be oppressed. And we should never be so oppressed, we forget how it was to be liberated. I believe that National Women’s Month was never meant to be a menstruation Olympics or a gate-kept space where womanhood is measured through a biological checklist. It exists to highlight the struggles and achievements of women across different identities and experiences. The month is more than just a celebration; it is a protest. Framing the movement as a contest to determine what a “real” woman is only obscures its true purpose.

Excluding trans women from this advocacy does not protect women—it creates a contradiction within the very principles feminism seeks to uphold. In a movement dedicated to dismantling systems of oppression, inclusion is not a threat; it is the foundation of progress. And in that fight, trans women are, and will always be, integral to this ongoing struggle.

The Frontman