December 6, 2012
This is a follow-up to THIS post.
A book reading by Christine Benvenuto, from her memoir “Sex Changes: A Memoir of Marriage, Gender, and Moving On” was disrupted by transgender activists who took issue with the author’s right to share her experiences as the wife of a transgendering partner. Although her ex-husband is never identified in her memoir he has since been publicly identified as Yeshiva University professor Jay, now “Joy” Ladin. Ladin, who notified the Orthodox Jewish university of his intention to adopt a “female” persona 48 hours after being granted tenure at the institution, himself published a memoir this year called “Through the Door of Life: A Jewish Journey Between Genders”. Ladin has referred to his transgenderism as his own “private concentration camp“. Ladin’s friends were reportedly among the activists who disrupted the reading, shouting obscenities and threatening violence until police were summoned.
One of the activists was Hampshire College “Queer Studies” professor Margaret Cerullo. From today’s Amherst Bulletin:
“While Benvenuto says her story can help families in which a member has gender issues, not everyone agrees. It has sparked a local protest which included Margaret Cerullo, a Hampshire College professor of sociology, who admits she hasn’t read the book, but nevertheless calls it hurtful, containing negative stereotypes about transgender people based on excerpts she read online. “These kind of portrayals are very damaging, especially for young trans people, who are already struggling with self-image … it seemed unnecessarily cruel,” she said in a phone interview.
“Last month Cerullo, a group of Hampshire students and others — including friends of Benvenuto’s ex-husband — showed up at Benvenuto’s reading at Amherst Books to voice their objections, an episode that ended with police being called. Cerullo said the group was attempting to have “a dialogue” with Benvenuto. Benvenuto, however, said the protesters shouted obscenities, even though children were present at the bookstore, and seemed to be seeking “a violent encounter.”
Benvenuto has also left the Jewish Community of Amherst Synagogue that she and her children have attended for years due to lack of support from some members.
From the same article:
“[Benvenuto] was also disturbed by what she calls “an anti-feminist element” among some people, primarily women, whose attitude appeared to be “we’re going to support your husband — you’re the wife and you’ve got to shut up and back him and sacrifice, and if your kids aren’t on board with this, get them on board.”
Read more from today’s Amherst Bulletin article here:
You can support Benvenuto’s right to free speech by purchasing her book here:
Makes a nice Holiday gift!
[bolding by me- GM]
September 26, 2012
Who is trans? Who has the right to “gender-bend”? Who has the right to attempt to impersonate the opposite sex? When is trans “authentic” and when is it not?
These issues are coming to the fore as conflicts around the hastily and ill-considered “gender identity” laws which were passed in the last decade become tested by real life application.
Who are the Gender Identity laws- which are being pushed by mainstream LGBT organizations- designed to protect? It’s the heterosexuals, stupid.
In Portland a group of sexual fetishists (heterosexual men whose sexual arousal occurs by imagining themselves occupying the sexual “object” = female) filed a complaint against a bar that refused to allow them to hold gatherings there on Friday nights. The reason? These hetero male fetishists, the “Rose City T-Girls” insisted on using the women’s restroom, reportedly leaving the seats up and pissing all over and generally making the women unsafe and uncomfortable. From Oregonlive.com:
“Though Avakian does not always file complaints, bureau spokesman Bob Estabrook said he did in this case because “there was concern that a large number of people were impacted.” He also said that because many of the T-Girls are not out of the closet as crossdressers “there may be barriers to the individuals filing the complaint themselves.”
Now, these guys make no claim to being “men in women’s bodies”, the standard internal, subjective, self-reported claim which Gender Identity laws are intended to protect. These guys get erections pretending to be female. Do Gender Identity protections force women into nonconsensual participation in these males sexual activities? Yes. And do Gender Identity laws remove the rights of women to privacy in women’s showers, locker rooms, restrooms and other areas segregated by sex for the safety of women from predatory males? Yes. Do Gender Identity laws remove the rights of women to act defensively and “trust their gut” in situations where some creepy dude is imposing himself? Yes.
Do transgender movement activists make a distinction between transsexuals who have undergone cosmetic medical or surgical “treatments” and hetero dudes that get erections pretending to be female? No. Do transgender movement activists make a distinction between individuals that have obtained legal “gender” recognition or otherwise objectively demonstrated a history of persistent internal self-concept of oneself as “the wrong sex” – and hetero dudes that get erections pretending to be female? No.
Let’s face it. Gender Identity is a religion. It is a personal internal belief, completely subjective, unprovable, faith-based. Gender Identity protections protect the right to personal faith and personal belief in stereotypes based on reproductive sex. But religious protections don’t provide the right to stomp on the rights of women. A man may have the right to sacrifice chickens to express his internal subjective faith-based beliefs. But he doesn’t have the right to do so in the Ladies Room at the corner pub. And he must have objective proof of authenticity of his religious belief – such as proof of duration, proof of commitment. He can’t just claim to be temporarily Jewish to force his employers to give him the day off for Yom Kippur for example.
But that is exactly what Gender Identity laws do. A few GI laws and ordinances require objective proof of the claimed internal faith-based belief in “gender”. But most don’t. That would harsh the hetero erectile buzz, dude. In fact this year neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran director of the Center for Brain and Cognition at the University of California, San Diego introduced research attempting to establish “Alternating Gender Incongruity” a “new category of transgenderism”. That’s right! Transgenders that “feel like” a woman in the morning and “feel like” a man for an hour or so before dinner, and then… etc. The transgender politic is moving rapidly away from “gender permanence” and away from objective proof of authentic faith. Even prominent transgender activist Meghan Stabler, the only heterosexual male board member of the largest LGBT organization in the US- the Human Rights Campaign- reverted to his male legal sex to marry his wife. It is all about the erections now.
Laws allowing legal change of sex were implemented for a tiny group of transsexuals that were left in social limbo due to having had their genitalia and reproductive organs surgically removed by experimental surgeries in the 1960’s, and their bodies visually changed from long-term ingestion of cross-sex hormones. Those people remain rare. According to a survey of the transgender population of NYC less than 5% of “full-time” transgenders have had “gender reassignment” surgery. Even with the current explosion of transgenderism, with some clinics reporting a doubling annually of individuals seeking cross-sex hormone treatments, there are still less than 50 surgeons worldwide willing to perform “sex change” surgeries. Transgender no longer means “sex change”. Legal sex is becoming increasingly meaningless and subjective. Gender Identity can change from morning to night- and back again. Why?
It’s the Heterosexuals, Stupid. Specifically it’s the predatory and sexist right to erections of heterosexual men that mainstream LGBT rights organizations are now fighting to protect. If you become aroused being perceived as an “object” (female), you require an AUDIENCE. Much like subway flashers, flashing alone to yourself at home lacks the “kick” that inflicting yourself on an audience provides. And the millions of closeted hetero transvestic fetishists – men in government and law and medicine and finance- are pushing these “protections” through faster than the social implications (for women) of their practical application can be assessed. So, gaggles of testosterone-soaked porn-sick dudes taking away a safe private place for women to pee and change their tampons, etc in Oregon. And everywhere these laws have been passed.
In Colorado a woman who reported a creepy man in the women’s restroom was told by mall security that they had no legal right to even inquire about the man’s internal gender self-concept due to the local Gender Identity ordinance. Much less kick him out. Or arrest him for being a predatory peeping tom.
From the comments section on the Oregonlive article linked above:
“KristyGCD-I want to clarify a few things… First, In my original comment I posted that “members of the Rose City T-Girls Yahoo Group filed the complaint”. Brad Avakian actually filed the complaint but to my understanding about a half dozen of the core members were named in the complaint. It becomes confusing and also they have a lawyer involved in some capacity as well.
Second, Cassandra the leader of the Rose City T-Girls Yahoo Group does not identify herself/himself with the title of “Transgender Woman”, he is a Crossdresser. It seems as if every single last news story went with that false title. If you go on the Rose City T-Girls Yahoo Group webpage and click the name link “Cassandra” at the bottom of the page, his Yahoo profile comes up and he identifies himself as “CD Cassandra”. His main yahoo email address even contains the word “crossdressing” in it.
Jennifer- Oh Kristy, don’t forget about Cassandra’s perverted little on-line sex site. Don’t forget to let people know that they can see more than they ever care to of Cassandra just by going to this linkhttp://www.ifriends.net/membrg/ShowClub_v2_custom.dll?pClub=CASSANDRA4FUN&pStyle=Home How freakin’ gross is that??? And this group claims that it represents the transgendered community. I just don’t understand how any self-respecting member of the transgendered community could associate itself with this sicko and his perverted group.
KristyGCD- Holy Crow! Google ‘CASSANDRA4FUN PORTLAND’ and you get back no less than 25 hits from a whole array of different smutty websites linking to his iFriends.Com sex cam profile. One of the websites his profile shows up on is a smut site called Teenagers.Org, Make no mistake, his Cassandra photo shows in every last one of them. What the…. OK, I’m feeling a little sick, I gotta go hurl now!
“Jennifer- You’re analogy is closer to the truth than you think, Lorca! They DO have a sex offender in their group! Their member of the month for this past August was arrested for masturbating in public (while dressed like a girl) in his neighborhood while little kids were playing! If people knew exactly how disgusting and depraved this group is, they would run them out of town!”
“KristyGCD- I was a member of the Rose City T-Girl Yahoo Group that filed the complaint. Also, as a crossdresser in that group I went to the P-Club almost every Friday night for most of the past year. From my perspective I can clearly see why the group cost Chris Penner his regular patrons and their business. A hand full in the group guzzled pitchers of cheap beer, were loud and obnoxious. Their behaviors also caused issues with the women’s bathroom as well. The CD leader of the group “Cassandra” was one of the biggest offenders of those same bad behaviors. Looking back and putting everything in hindsight, I am ashamed of myself for involving my crossdressing in something so tacky and chaotic. The leaders of group (same ones who filed the complaint) knew there was a problem with their presence there from as far back as 18 months ago, but continued to use the P-Club as the Friday night hangout. One of CD’s in the group even posted that fact in his blog ‘Susan Miller’s Blog’. My opinion from experience from then and up to today, this whole complaint seems more like a “gotcha” moment in the simple wording of a sentence on requesting the group not to come back. Why on earth a group of mostly closeted CD’s would want to play “the victim” bring themselves into controversy and the public eye is beyond me…”
Sydney crossdresser and performer Trevor Ashley has a parody of the musical “Annie” opening at the Sydney Opera House in a few months called “TrAnnie”. From Gay News Network.com:
“It follows the “hard knock life” of ten year old orphan Fannie who is desperate to have “long-overdue” gender reassignment surgery but must first escape the Sutherland Shire Children’s Orphanage and the clutches of boozy matron and registered sex offender Miss Trannigan.”
Transgender activists, in what the article calls a “growing controversy” are up in arms against the non-heterosexual crossdresser. Why? Because Ashley has not proclaimed an internal feeling/faith of “I am in the wrong body”. He has not given public personal testimony as to his internal self belief vis a vis “Gender Identity”. Why not? Because he is a crossdresser, just like the heterosexual fetishist Rose City T-Girls, who also are crossdressing men, men protected by the “Transgender Umbrella”. But in Ashley’s case….no erections! No heterosexuality! So no umbrella for you.
“Trans Menace” spokesman Indi Edwards- a heterosexual man who famously launched a campaign likening lesbian feminists to insects deserving of extermination – and who, along with other transgender activists joined forces with Men’s Rights Activists to have Gender Identity “protections” in Great Britain applied to prevent all female-only gatherings and conferences at Conway Hall- vows to stop Ashley’s show from ever being performed: “The show wont go on” he stated [sic].
So there you have it. This is the tale of how the LGBT movement became an anti-female, anti-gay, Heterosexual Men’s Rights movement. The most powerful heterosexual Men’s Rights movement since, uh….well.
August 15, 2012
Better watch this one quick. This 2009 video archive of the 16×9 news program featuring the John Fulton case was only uploaded yesterday but trans are already trying to censor it and prevent it from being viewed- by reporting it to YouTube as “promoting hatred and violence” (!) :
Fulton was the owner of an Ontario women-only gym (which had only one open shower and change area) who was dragged before the Ontario Human Rights Commission three years ago by man with a penis, Lisa MacDonald- who insisted it was his human right to parade his dick into the open women’s shower. Fulton lost tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees before MacDonald suddenly dropped his complaint. Since the Commission could not rule on the withdrawn complaint, Fulton had no resolution and no way to recoup his legal fees.
Case against John Fulton
In 2006, a transgendered woman (now known as Lisa MacDonald) visited Downtown Health Club for Women in St. Catharines, Ontario and asked owner John Fulton for Membership. MacDonald explained that she was actually a pre-operative Male-to-Female transsexual who was in the process of undergoing as sex-change operation, but for the time being, still possessed male gentalia. Fulton explained his concern that with only one change room and shower room in the club, admitting this individual would have meant allowing a man to observe the other patrons—all female—in various stages of undress. Approximately one week later, the individual filed a human rights complaint with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) alleging discrimination.
Fulton, and his lawyer Andrew Roman, argued that the Ontario Human Rights Code specifically permits facilities to serve a single sex on the grounds of public decency, and ordains that such restrictions do not constitute illegal discrimination. They also argued that that admitting the complainant would violate the rights of club members to freedom of association under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Fulton also questioned how he was supposed to distinguish the applicant from a voyeur or an exhibitionist.
Fulton stated that he received calls from his members threatening to quit if the transgendered individual was allowed to join before the sex-change operation was completed. Fulton also claimed that the OHRC told him he had to let the transgendered individual use the women’s facilities but refused to provide him with a clear answer on what his rights and the rights of his female clients were in this situation. Fulton also stated he never denied membership to the applicant and that she was welcome to use club once the sex-change operation was completed.
The case was scheduled for a hearing in late 2009. However, the individual then withdrew the complaint without explanation. As a result, Fulton was left with legal bills of roughly $150,000 and argued that he had been wrongly accused of being a discriminatory without being given a chance to respond. The Tribunal refused to compensate Fulton for any costs, stating that it lacked the authority to do so. In an interview with the St. Catharines Standard, Fulton stated that “They put me through hell for three years and at the 11th hour, they dropped it. There really was no resolution … and my costs with this are huge.”
In declining to provide award any costs to Fulton, The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario’s Alternate Chair Kaye Joachim wrote that:
- the HRTO had no authority to award costs;
- no costs against could be awarded against the complainant because Alternate Chair Joachim ruled that there was no abuse the complaint process;
- the complainant had “raised important and novel questions about the scope of the Code and its application to transgendered individuals.”;
- Fulton and his lawyers “may have caused unnecessary legal costs by raising spurious preliminary issues,” including constitutional arguments that were later dropped;
- Fulton party’s request that MacDonald produce her entire medical history was, in part, “completely irrelevant to the issues raised in the application.
Fulton’s lawyer, Andrew Roman disargeed with Joachim’s comments, adding that “I’ll be taking steps to deal with that…The way the tribunal is set up now, the complainant is rewarded for taking a risk-free grab at a big bag of money. Roman claimed that at the mediation stage, the “typical payoff” is often around $20,000 and that if a person “can’t work out a settlement at mediation, you go to a hearing and have to pay many times that.” Fulton also claimed that the Commission pushed him to pay MacDonald, stating that “They told me that I had to pay her legal fees, write a letter of apology admitting guilt and I could make it go away,” but he refused, stating that ” I didn’t know what to do and I wanted … a tribunal decision. I’m stubborn.” He also stated that “They’re picking on the wrong guy. The OHRC needs to be rejigged … before other people end up being in a situation where they feel like they’re being extorted.”
Karen Selick, the litigation director for the Canadian Constitution Foundation which supported Mr. Fulton, sharply criticized the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) and the process by which it handles complaints, writing in the National Post that:
“For complainants, the process is virtually risk-free. It costs them nothing to file a complaint, and the tribunal mediator will help explain the shakedown. If they want some legal help filing their complaint, they can get it gratis, at the taxpayer-funded Human Rights Legal Support Centre. And they never have to risk paying costs, no matter how ill-conceived or unjustified their complaint was. Heads, the complainant wins; tails, the accused loses.”
In February 2009, Afroze Edwards, a spokeswoman for the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) expressed support for the applicant, arguing that:
“The [Ontario Human Rights] code does not distinguish between transsexuals who are at different stages of transition.. I think the important thing to remember there is how they identify themselves; what their sense is, that they are living as a man or living as a woman. Regardless of whether they’re preop or postop, it’s their lived gender that’s important.”
Interestingly, Kristen Worley- a male athlete and genderist who occupies a female slot in women’s cyclist rankings despite his male body – is interviewed in the program and comes out AGAINST the rights of males to inflict their penises on females in gym showers and change rooms.
Like I said: Watch it while you can!
July 13, 2012
Posting this as an update to this post.
Well contrary to what is stated at the end of Paris Lees’ dubiously edited teaser video of Julie Bindel, the complete interview is NOT posted in the current issue of Lees’ transgender rag META which was published today.
What we get instead is the following attempt at a hit piece. Screencapped under Fair Use:
Lees’ critique of the ideas expressed here by Bindel :
She is “full of nonsense”. Why? Lees does not say.
“Enjoying Male privilege does not make it a motive for transition. But this is Julie’s way: making factual points followed by seemingly commonsense conclusions which are, in fact, wild and illogical” What is wild and illogical about Bindel’s assertion? Lees does not say.
Lees’ critique here:
“Such roles, she rather lazily points out, benefit men and not women” What was lazy about the manner in which Julie made this observation? Lees does not say.
“It’s garbled, binary thinking- without the slightest hint of irony” What is Lees’ critique here? He does not say. It’s becoming apparent that he simply is unable to engage with the material: He does not understand it.
Well, you can see where this is going. Lees’ critique of radical feminism “anything but radical”, “increasingly out of touch with mainstream”. Lees characterizes Bindel’s concerns about medicalizing gender in children as “her latest gripe”, but again, offers no real counterpoint. Lees does appeal to the authority of the medical establishment, citing “several strict criteria” applied to children who are approved for gender sterilization (puberty blockers followed by sterilizing cross-hormone treatments prior to sexual maturity). In actuality the practice of medically transgendering children is highly controversial in the medical community. Lees then interestingly characterizes “transgender” children as “a child who makes themselves ill because they’re clearly unhappy with their assigned gender”[ bolding mine-GM]. Lees also falsely states that transgender surgeries are not performed on minors. That is simply incorrect as many of the teen trans trender videos featured on this site will attest. Surgeries are being performed on minors with parental consent.
Lees goes on in this last heavily edited segment (example: he cuts Bindel’s thoughts about transgender regret down to a sentence fragment, substituting his paraphrased re-interpretation of the statements she presumably made, which he censored.) to complain that he cannot imagine the “ideal world” where we would not ascribe a gender to children. Where is the evidence? The world has always been this way! He goes on to characterize Julie as “paranoid” and “sensationalistic” for de-crying the McCarthyism of “LGBTTQQI” identity politics, but he never engages with her critique or explains his characterization. Jesus. Well, you can read the rest for yourself. He apparently cannot allow her uncensored speech, and he has enormous difficulty understanding and engaging with the material. (I’m being very polite here folks!)
I chuckle remembering what Lees tweeted after I covered his “Julie Bindel’s Genitals” post (subsequently scrubbed by him) last year on GenderTrender. He said “It scares me how intelligent they sound sometimes… it’s like they can actually think in quite sophistacated terms… just odd” [sic]
I’m not trying to pick on Lees or anyone who has trouble understanding or engaging with challenging new (to them) ideas. Lord knows I’m not the sharpest tack in the box. But I think Lees’ piece points to a dynamic that informs the increasingly violent rhetoric of the trans activist community. When he can’t understand the critique, he uses misogynist put-downs. “nonsense” “illogical” “wild” “bizarre” “paranoid” etc. I fancy a bit of snark as much as anyone, but it has to be actually attached to a point of view. All nicely summed up with the final line of his commentary about radical feminism: “History is not on their side”. HAHAHAHAHA! “HISTORY IS NOT ON THEIR SIDE!” LMAO!
NO SHIT! THAT’S THE FUCKING PROBLEM. HISTORY IS ON THE SIDE OF MALE SUPREMACY! Hahaha. Jesus.
But back to the title of this commentary: “It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what you say or do: Trans Activists want to kill you”
It doesn’t matter whether you try to dialogue with trans activists or not.
It doesn’t matter whether you use the fake pronouns or not.
It doesn’t matter whether you call them women or not.
It doesn’t matter whether you pretend you think men can be lesbians or not.
It doesn’t matter if you are super polite and deferential to the gender faithful or not.
It doesn’t matter if you explain yourself ten times or one.
It doesn’t matter whether you are argumentative or conciliatory.
It doesn’t matter how many times you explain that you support trans to be free from discrimination.
These people just can’t fucking hear you.
They don’t WANT to hear you.
They want you to shut the fuck up regardless of what you are saying.
They can’t even understand what you are saying.
And if they can, they are terrified. Because there is no counterpoint to radical feminist critique of gender. None.
All genderists can do is what males always do when male supremacy is challenged: silence, censor, threaten. Confine the insurgence. Suppress.
Trans Activist Suzan Cooke, (also featured in this issue of Lees’ META magazine) responded on his blog to Julie Bindel’s interview by comparing radfems to Nazis and stated “I’m Polish-American and I know the only compromise with Nazism grows out of the barrel of one gun or the other.”
And it doesn’t matter whether you author a trans-critical blog, protest the infringement on sex-based protections for females caused by “gender identity” laws, support clinics that offer reproductive services for females, state that homosexuality exists and that lesbians don’t like penis (whether surgically altered or not), or whether you once said the word “tranny” three years ago, when you were eighteen, before you found out some trans activists decided to disavow it, and you apologized like hell when it was brought to your attention…. Trans Activists are still going to target you for suppression. They are going to want to kill you. It doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what you say or do.
So go on ahead. Be as trans critical as you want. Until trans come to terms with the inherent anti-female platform of the transgender movement there will be no peace for women.
This video was edited and posted by Dyke March Organizer Ida Hammer who confronted Cathy Brennan to inform her that feminist dykes were not welcome at NYC Dyke March 2012.
Hopefully video of the entire incident coming soon. Updates will be posted.
Participants in the 20th anniversary NYC Dyke March on Saturday were treated to a frightening surprise when groups of transgender activists surrounded lesbians who carried signs in support of feminists who challenge stereotypical gender roles – and those who speak out on preserving lesbian community and events from the incursion of anti-feminist practices. Once surrounded, the transgender bullies screamed, yelled and threatened the women, who the mob felt were “disrespecting” non-lesbians and non-feminists.
This is the first time in the history of the NYC Dyke March that lesbians have been accosted, attacked and threatened with violence. Unbelievably, one of the attack instigators was a trans activist calling himself “Ida Hammer” who actually claims to serve on the official NYC Dyke March organizing committee! Like “Hammer” , several of the other anti-lesbian bigots had strolled along the march route among the lesbians, some carrying signs saying “free blow jobs”, “free [convicted transgender murderer] CeCe” and chanting “We’re Here, We’re “Holes”, We’re Fabulous”.
The pack of anti-lesbian protesters focused most of their homophobic rage against lesbian feminist activist Cathy Brennan, who was marching with a few friends. The mob surged towards her, backing her up and surrounding her, screaming and cursing into her face as close as they could get where they had pinned her. The transgender and hetersexual protesters tightened around her to ensure that she could not move or escape.
Lesbian bystanders called for the mob to back up and give Cathy space and let her move: and to cease the harassment, the verbal abuse and the physical threats but the pack would not let her move and continued to terrorize and hurl abuse and profanity while threatening to violently assault her.
Many of the attackers were apparently enraged by Cathy’s public statements asserting that biology (reproductive sex) is not the same thing as social gender roles and internal gendered self-concepts. Also, her definition of lesbians as females (who are sexually oriented to other females) and her belief that lesbians should not be sexually coerced or labeled “transphobic” for rejecting sexual relations with males. Some were angry that she has verbalized support for the right of females and lesbians to have gatherings and support services that exclude males.
Ultimately Cathy was able to break away but the harassers continued to stalk her and the other lesbians at a restaurant.
Not only did the Dyke March Marshal‘s fail to intervene and protect the safety of Cathy Brennan and the other lesbians present but according to photos recording the incident posted on Cathy’s website HERE, several of those assaulting her were actually wearing red t-shirts identifying them as March Marshals. Details on the perpetrators of the 2012 NYC Dyke March attack are being posted on Cathy’s site as they become known. Video of the attack will (hopefully) be posted on GenderTrender shortly, as well as updates on the investigation and the organizing committee response to the Transgender Anti-Dyke Attacks of NYC Dyke March 2012.
Other posts with more information on the incident are here:
[More links will be posted shortly- please contact me with updates-GM]
CALL FOR ACTION: Please contact NYC Dyke March Organizers and request a public statement denouncing this incident and demanding that Dyke March co-organizer Ida Hammer, seen in photos physically threatening and preventing Lesbian Feminist Cathy Brennan from her right to free movement- be removed from official position IMMEDIATELY.
You may reach them here:
“Kelly Cogswell is an independent journalist and columnist for New York’s Gay City News whose work has been recognized by the New York Press Association. She was co-founder and editor of The Gully online magazine, one of the first online LGBT publications and the only to offer “queer views on everything.” A founding member of the Lesbian Avengers, she was co-organizer of the first Dyke March in Washington, D.C. in 1993 that mobilized 20,000 lesbians to march to the White House. Afterwards, the Avengers turned into a national and international movement, with more than 60 chapters worldwide. In 2009, she created the Lesbian Avenger Documentary Project.
Gabrielle Korn is a freelance writer, activist, and organizer. She received her B.A. in queer and feminist theory from NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study in May of 2011. She is the former editorial assistant at On The Issues magazine. Currently, she’s a member of the New York City Dyke March committee and a coordinator at the Lesbian Herstory Archives.”
June 1, 2012
In a stunning announcement by UK’s Conway Hall, once a bastion of free speech, intellectual diversity and controversial views (hell, they even rented space to the fricken National Front for many years) Conway Hall has announced that all female-only gatherings are henceforth banned from the venue:
Statement Regarding RadFem 2012
In consultation with the organisers of RadFem 2012 and our legal advisors, Conway Hall has decided not to allow the booking in July 2012 to proceed. This is because it does not conform to our Terms and Conditions for hiring rooms at Conway Hall. In addition, we are not satisfied it conforms with the Equality Act (2010), or reflects our ethos regarding issues of discrimination.
We had sought assurances that the organisers would allow access to all, in order to enable the event to proceed at the venue. We also expressed concern that particular speakers would need to be made aware that whilst welcoming progressive thinking and debate, Conway Hall seeks to uphold inclusivity in respect of both legal obligations and as a principle.
In the absence of the assurances we sought, the event in its proposed form could not proceed at Conway Hall.
That said, we recognise the breadth of debate to be had amongst the feminist and transgender communities and it is our sincere hope that there will be constructive and positive dialogue on these matters going forward.
In response to Sheila Jeffreys’ online Guardian article in their ‘Comment is free’ section, dated 29th May 2012, we would like it to be known that Conway Hall has in the past made clear that speakers / attendees at events for other hirers will not be permitted where we have felt that these individuals have expressed and may express (on our premises) views which conflict with our ethos, principles, and culture; the reference to David Irving was simply one of the examples given.
“Women Up North” Feminist Conference Protested, No-Platformed, for scheduling a Female-Only Survivor of Sex Abuse Workshop
May 30, 2012
After a tumultuous week of controversial protests from the transgender community over “RadFem2012”, a small female-only radical feminist gathering scheduled to be held in the UK this summer, transgender activists against female-only gatherings turned their attention to another feminist conference, this time the Manchester Feminist Network’s “Women Up North” event.
Genderists and their allies expressed “blood boiling” anger at a scheduled workshop for Female Survivors of Sexual Abuse, claiming that such a workshop discriminates against those born male.
The Manchester Feminist Network issued the following statement on their website today:
“We don’t see it as transphobic to have some seperate space for born women. Some of the women in our group are vocal advocates of trans-women’s rights. Some of us advocate for trans-women’s human rights but still want to be in born woman space sometimes and don’t see the 2 as mutually exclusive. Many of us have trans-women as family members, friends and work colleagues. As a feminist network of different women we struggle with these differences and yet try to still work together. The compropmise that we came to for Women Up North was that it would generally be open to trans-women but that the sexual abuse survivors and sexuality workshops could be designated born women only as the facilitators requested this.
The vast majority of sexual abuse is committed on women by men. Most women seek out women only services for support and recovery e.g. rape crisis centres, survivors groups or women counsellors. This doesnt mean that all male counsellors or support services are rapists, but that unfortunately under patriarchy women are understandably sometimes fearful of and uncomfortable around men (just think how differently it impacts on women when having a man or woman walking behind them when alone out at night). Sadly, some of us would not feel as safe/uninhibited in the presence of people who have lived some of their lives as men, however those individuals feel/see themselves and whether they too are survivors of sexual violence. Blame patriarchy for this, not feminist survivors of abuse. Please work with us seperately when requested, and together at all other times to challenge male violence and patriarchy. We have alot of common ground and alot of work to do! Some of us like this article by Jenny Roberts, a trans-woman who used to run the lesbian bookshop and arts festival Libertas http://www.annelawrence.com/buildingbridges.html
This is our response on the matter and we are unlikely to respond to individual comments, apologies.”
In response to transgender anti-female protests the entire Women Up North conference has been “No Platformed” by the same UK F-Word Feminist Network that last week called for all female-only gatherings in the UK to be legally banned in response to complaints that female gatherings discriminate against the rights of those born reproductively male. From the F-Word Facebook Page, with all comments: