Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label feminism. Show all posts

Sunday, September 25, 2022

France: For a feminist and trans alliance


September 22
Originally published by the New Anti-Capitalist Party

Following the publication by Planned Parenthood of a poster for trans men in the context of their pregnancies, activists opposing the rights of trans people in the name of feminism signed on August 22, an open letter addressed to the Prime Minister, Élisabeth Borne, in the weekly Marianne.

We feminists reject this instrumentalisation of women's rights, fight against any opposition between feminism and trans struggles and condemn without appeal these discourses that are part of a reactionary offensive.

The use of fallacious arguments
Anti-trans activists denounce an essentialization of women by a so-called "transactivism", while reducing women to their mere genitals. This definition contradicts the majority of feminist writings produced since the 1960s. You are not born a woman, you become one. Similarly, what is referred to as sex covers a set of factors that go beyond the binarity imposed for centuries.

Being a woman does not stem from the mere sexual assignment, but from an exploitation that takes several forms: economic, domestic, sexual. Thus, contrary to what anti-trans activists claim, trans women are also exposed to these exploitations and to gender-based and sexual violence. There is no universal condition of "women" but a set of diverse experiences according to the social positions of each.

By basing their argument on the general public's ignorance of the struggles and experiences of trans people, anti-trans activists demonize transition paths. They show intellectual dishonesty playing on fear of trans children. Gender dysphoria would then become a mental disorder, operations, mutilations, and support from medical staff and the trans community, conversion therapies. As with marriage equality, the protection of children becomes a false nose behind which they hide to weigh in the public debate against trans people.

Trans rights are inseparable from women's rights
The current political period is seeing a violent backlash on women's rights, as the French government retains ministers accused of rape. Elsewhere in the world, the right to abortion is being violated, particularly in Poland and the United States. With 89 RN (National Rally) deputies in the National Assembly, we are not exempt from an attack of such magnitude. It is more important than ever not to get the fight wrong.

In the United States, the attack on abortion rights was preceded by numerous anti-trans laws: in Ohio, the Save Women's Sports Act provides that if a student's gender is in doubt, the student must undergo an intrusive examination to prove their gender. In all these cases, it is an attack on people's right to control their bodies. The arrival of similar attacks on trans people in France suggests a fate similar to that of the United States.

The essentialist view of women promoted by anti-trans activists is shared by reactionary theorists and masculinists. It is no surprise that these two groups have cooperated and that the far right is the first relay of anti-trans publications.

What are the prospects for the feminist and trans movements? Regardless of whether transitions seem incomprehensible or abstract, trans people are not a thought exercise meant to question what defines male and female roles.

The current political situation is forcing the feminist movement to position itself in support of trans people's demands. Attending without taking sides is not an option. Not claiming to be anti-trans is not enough, we must actively demand with trans people and with feminists, trans emancipation.

We demand the autonomy of transition pathways, the simplification of access to administrative procedures, the training of health personnel, access to transitional care and full reimbursement.

We call for the real opening of medically assisted procreation to trans people and the facilitation of administrative filiation for trans parents.

We call for massive support for associations helping trans people and an increase in subsidies to ensure the sustainability of their actions.

We defend a materialistic approach to trans issues, that is, one that is not entangled in an essentialist approach to femininity, based on the experiences of trans people and not on what reactionaries fantasize about it.

We demand that the press and media take responsibility for how they represent and disseminate discourse about trans people.

We demand clear, economic and institutional support from political actors for trans people and their rights.

We stand against the instrumentalisation by anti-trans interest of the journeys of lesbians and people who have detransitioned.

We oppose the discord that some are trying to push between feminism and trans rights.

We call for the active support of all forces claiming feminism towards trans people.

first signatories:
Organizations
Commission Proud and Revolutionaries of the Communist Party of France; Bread and Roses (Permanent Revolution); Europe Ecology The Greens (EELV); Homosexuality and Socialism (Party of the Radical Left); New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA); Libertarian Communist Union; Student Union Federation; National High School Movement; Student Solidarity - Unions of Struggle; Sex Workers Union; Video Game Workers Union; Trade Union Solidarity; The High School Student Voice.

Individuals
Ségolène Amiot, France Unbowed MP (LFI); Pénélope Bagieu, author; Alexandre Baril, Associate Professor, University of Ottawa; Marc-Antoine Bartoli, Prevention Coordinator of Act Up-Paris; Lauren Bastide, journalist; Amal Bentounsi; Alix Béranger, feminist, clinical psychologist; Marilou Berry, actress and director; Olivier Besancenot, spokesperson and former NPA presidential candidate; Agnès Bihl, singer; Pauline Bock, journalist with Freeze-frame; Billie Brelok, rapper; Barbara Butch, DJ; Marie Cau, only trans mayor in France; Magyd Cherfi, author, former singer of the group Zebda; Aya Cissoko, boxing champion and author; Clarika, singer; Pauline Clochec, lecturer in philosophy at the University of Picardy; Maëlle Le Corre, journalist and author; Margot De Re, Belgian ecologist and feminist MP; Virginie Despentes, author; Rokhaya Diallo, journalist, author and director; Karine Espineira, sociologist, Paris 8 University; Casey Fabries, co-secretary general of Act Up-Paris; Éric Fassin, sociologist, Paris 8 University; Julie Ferrua, national secretary of the Trade Union Solidarity; Amandine Gay, director and author; Murielle Guilbert, co-delegate of the Trade Union Solidarity; Adèle Haenel, actress; Andy Kerbrat, LFI MP; Aurore Koechlin, Collective Feminist Revolutionary and sociologist, Paris 1 University; Sarah Legrain, LFI MP; Mademoiselle K, singer; Tal Madesta, journalist and author; Alex Mahoudeau, author of "The Panic Woke"; Mirion Malle, author; Florie Marie, spokesperson of the Pirate Party; Jul' Maroh, transfeminist artist; Daria Marx, feminist activist; Corinne Masiero, actressChristophe Martet, editor-in-chief of Komitid (LGBT+ news website); Cloé Mehdi, author; Guillaume Meurice, comedian and radio journalist; Liza Monet, rapper artist; Yolande Moreau, actress; Danièle Obono, LFI MP; Ocean, director and actor; Paloma (Hugo Bardin), drag queen; Eric Piolle, EELV mayor of Grenoble; Jüne Plã, author of Enjoyment Club; Pomme, singer; Christine Poupin, NPA spokesperson; Philippe Poutou, spokesperson and former NPA presidential candidate; Paul B. Preciado, philosopher; Eddy de Pretto, singer; Charlie Rano, actress and director; Giovanna Rincon, director of Acceptess-T; Élisa Rojas, lawyer and activist; Mathieu Rigouste, Social scientist; Marina Rollman, humorist; Sandrine Rousseau, EELV MP; Olivia Ruiz, singer; Tahnee, lesbian Afro-feminist comedian; Maud-Yeuse Thomas, co-founder Observatory of Transidentities; Assa Traoré, anti-racist activist; Valérie Rey-Robert, author and feminist; Fiona Schmidt, author and feminist activist; Danielle Simonnet, LFI MP for Paris; Marie Slavicek, journalist at Le Monde; Kiddy Smile, artist; Saïdou, artist (Sidi Wacho); Shirley Souagnon, comedian; Louis-Georges Tin, founder of the World Day against Homophobia, Homophobia, and Transphobia; Usul, videographer and streamer; Mélanie Vogel, Senator EELV; Rebeka Warrior, artist; Dr. Imam Ludovic-Mohamed Zahed, CALEM Institute (Marseille).

Associations
Acceptess-T; Act-Up Paris; AIDES; Bi'Cause; CIA – Intersex Activist Collective; Collectives of Femicide Collages Paris; Feminicide Coordination; The national coordination of the collective #NousToutes (All of US); David & Jonathan; EFiGiES – students, doctoral students and young researchers in Feminist, Gender and Sexuality Studies; Red Umbrella Federation; Fransgendre; Inter-LGBT; Lesbian Liberation; MAG Young LGBT+; Organisation of Trans Solidarity; West Trans; OUTrans; Family Planning; Pride of the Suburbs; The Trans Health Network; RITA ; Les Séropotes; SOS Homophia; Toutes des femmes.

Media, newspapers, magazines, publishing houses Éditions Cases Rebelles; Éditions Hors d’atteinte; Éditions Les Grillages, maison d’édition trans et féministe; Éditions Libertalia; Friction Magazine; Revue GLAD! (review on language, gendre and sexualités); Gusoma, media afro-LGBT; Madame Rap, the first media dedicated to women and LGBT+ in rap; Manifesto XXI, média; PD La Revue; Revue Trou Noir; Women Who Do Stuff.

Read more...

Tuesday, February 27, 2018

France - Sexual assault allegations rock France's main student union

Content Warning: Descriptions of Rape, Assault, Rape Apologism
[This article originally appeared in the French left-wing daily Libération. It follows revelations in Le Monde in November of widespread sexual abuse within the National Union of Student of France - one of France's largest student organisations. It comes after 83 former women activists of UNEF published an open letter in Le Monde condemning sexual violence within UNEF. I'm reproducing these due to the similarities with how power has been abused in albeit much smaller left-wing Anglophone organisations].

Sexual abuse: the testimonies that overwhelm the UNEF
By Laure Bretton and Ismaël Halissat
February 19, 2018
Libération

Libération gathered the testimonies of sixteen women victims who have reported harassment, sexual assault and rape by leaders of the student organization between 2007 and 2015. Long inaudible, or silent, these former activists recount years of union sexism and its apparent laissez-faire attitude to sexual violence. 

When she settles down to sleep at the Fête de l'Humanité, in September 2014, Laurie* is exhausted. Having only recently become an activist of the Unef (National Union of Students of France), she just spent the day running the union stand with her friends. Like the end of every summer, this meeting of a substantial part of the left is the occasion for the organization to recruit new members. Despite the fatigue, Laurie is not going to sleep.

A member of the leadership of the union, and having joined UNEF in the mid-2000s, Grégoire T. insists on following her to her tent, pitched in the campground of La Courneuve. They have already had several sexual encounters but were not in an ongoing relationship. But tonight, Laurie does not want it. "I had planned to sleep with another activist but he invited himself, says the student. He hoped to be able to sleep with both of us. " Soon, the second young woman falls asleep. "He tells me he has the right to a blowjob in compensation, which I refuse," says Laurie. He begins to press my head. I refuse again. He is pressing more and more strongly. I beat him back again. He puts his hand in my pants and kisses me with force. And starts again for several minutes. " The activist cannot take it anymore. She wants it to stop: "I ended up letting myself go." For a long time, Laurie does not really realize what she's experienced. Today, she's talking about rape. Three years after the events, Grégoire T., who became a journalist, had another version of the evening, assuring that his partner was consenting for a blowjob and that everything went "without coercion".

A complaint of "rape"
Two years later, Laurie became a seasoned activist, she is "up" in the instances of UNEF and is now part of the National Office (NO), the body that supports the leadership. With Grégoire T., the exchange of text messages has continued since September 2014. They talk about trade union activities and sometimes invite each other to spend the night together without this ever happening. In June 2016, Laurie saw recently in a campus nearby local union in the XIXth arrondissement of Paris. That night, she drinks shots of alcohol with fellow comrades in the leadership. As she prepares to go home to sleep, Grégoire T. announces that he will accompany her home. Without asking her opinion."I told him," I do not want to, "and I left," recalls the young woman.

But when she arrives home, Grégoire T. is there and waiting for her. Laurie repeats that she does not want to spend the night with him. Then follow negotiations. Tired, the young woman finally accepts that he goes up while clearly stating that nothing will happen between them. But hardly the door of the open apartment, Gregory T. undresses completely and tells her to do the same. Laurie refuses. According to her, he forces her to lie on her bed. She drank too much, her head is spinning because of alcohol. "He's starting to undress me. I try to push him away, to tell him I do not want to, but I have no strength left. At that moment, I feel like a doll, lifeless. He rapes me. There are no other words, Laurie says coldly. The next morning, Grégoire T. will try to impose a sexual relationship again, but she will have the strength to push him away. She then locks herself in the shower and stays there for forty minutes hoping he leaves. But when she goes out, Grégoire T. is still there and retries one last time before leaving.

"I cried all day and then I forgot," says Laurie. When this story is told to him, his contests and assures that they had agreed to return together, that they had sexual intercourse without violence and that he did not insist the next day. In a relationship with Grégoire T. in the summer of 2014, Joséphine* also tells of being a victim of rape. One night in July, "I woke up because he was penetrating me," she says. I did not understand what was happening. I asked him at least to put on a condom. It stopped at that moment. " Asked about this scene, Grégoire T. explains that he was also asleep at that time.

In mid-January, Laurie decided to file a complaint of rape against Grégoire T, reveals Libération today. And Josephine, who has just surrounded herself with a lawyer, is about to do the same. The end of long years of silence in what was for a long time the premiere student union in France.

A direction where "men think, women organize"
An omnipotent leadership - "deified", in the words of a former leader - women removed from power and sexual abuse at least minimized: for several months, Libération investigated the top of UNEF. Its leaders for a few years given and expected everything from the union. Forty interviews to collect testimonies and stories of sixteen victims of declared harassment and, for some, sexual assault and rape. When the UNEF bends the Villepin government, forced to withdraw its first-time contract in spring 2006, the student union is at its peak. A year later, Nicolas Sarkozy is elected, the left is organized against the president and relies on its youth battalions. At the height of its power, the National Union of Students of France will have up to 30,000 members from just over 2.4 million students. A heterogeneous group in which it is - statistically - normal to come across cases of harassment and aggression."Not impervious to the ills of society".

After Bruno Julliard, it is Jean-Baptiste Prévost who takes the orders of the Unef in 2007. A student from Sciences-Po, this former parliamentary counsellor inherits a powerful organization where sexism and machismo have always had a free reign. In the leadership, "it was said: men think, women organize," says Marion Oderda. Former national leader, she will be one of the few to openly oppose the very personal management of the union by its president. "I will not be your pimp," she says slamming the door of UNEF in 2010, an expression reported by at least three activists interviewed by Libération. An incident and an early departure that Jean-Baptiste Prévost puts, down to a just being a result of an internal union dispute.

The Prévost presidency will, however, be marked by many excesses. Seen as legitimate by some, these practices seem to have given an implicit green light for many leaders. The UNEF then becomes a sexual hunting ground. On the other side, Prévost appears on television sets to defend the student cause and campaign against the power of the right. On the flip side, the man draws phone numbers from the union files to access multiple sexual partners. "The regional training weekends, it was the supermarket", recalls Elodie Le Moigne, ex-president of the Unef at the University Paris-XIII. "There was pressure from the local presidents and members of the national office to retrieve the numbers or addresses of activists. They were acting for themselves or on behalf of the National President". "Jean-Baptiste chose girls, it was a typical profile of girl", speaking of this side of him, Annaïg P., a former member of the national office. "They are often young, moreover provincial, isolated and beginners, so fragile. At the Unef, we say a "little girl"".

In 2009, one of them, Marine*, an activist in the provinces, thought to have kept secret the relationship she has with the President for a few months. One September night, she tries to escape discreetly at the end of a meeting to join him at his hotel. Some comrades wince but a friend of Prévost releases her with a wink, "It's the boss, when he demands something, we run." "I took it smiling at the time," says Marine. "Prévost took advantage of the organization. He did not need to be violent, he had his status as president". When an activist finally dares to complain about the actions of a member of the management, regardless of his rank, it is suggested to keep quiet. Because"Unef is not a people's court, " that "it is a valuable companion" or that one suspects always "a political machination". Pretexts to minimize. And, in fact, impose silence. "At each stroke, I was answered:" You have evidence of what you're saying? You cannot say that it's the president, " says Elodie Le Moigne. "Under the term "big rehearsal", there were many different things and nobody really wanted to see the reality that it covered", explains Sarah Aoudia, former president of UNEF Nîmes and member of the national office. "And in fact, the circle of the national leadership had a kind of invisible protection".

To "follow" the faculties for which they are responsible, the members of the national office crisscross France. During these years, also sets up a funny game, to which the members of the leadership devote themselves: to get number and address of a militant whom they spotted before calling her down from her house in the middle of the night and insist on being lodged. Methods that Jean-Baptiste Prevost completely refutes, explaining that he "never searched or found a number in the files of the Unef" and that he never chose "himself" his accommodation in the provinces. These evenings sometimes end with sexual intercourse. Then the question of consent arises. Tacitly granted, forgotten, extorted?"They were playing on solidarity, compassion and their status as national leaders: we were in the middle of an abuse of unequal power" says Maria C., a member of the organization's leadership from 2006 to 2009, for whom "many cases at the UNEF do not fall under the law because it is inadequate".

What most of the women interviewed by Libération tell us seems at least to be harassed by Jean-Baptiste Prévost. But the rest, all the rest? We enter a grey area. Initially, most activists accepted the game of seduction and sexual intercourse. And since they said nothing at the time, they fear not to be believed or to be the target of pressure from their former comrades. "To survive the Unef, you have to be a strong woman, it's impossible to be perceived as a victim," says Sorayah M., member of the national office from 2008 to 2012. "We were taught to arm ourselves, strength was valued and allowed you to progress in the union, to speak would have been an admission of weakness, adds Florine Tillié, former president of Unef Champagne-Ardenne. But the psychological consequences of such a devaluing system for women are destructive, even years later. "

Single-sex meetings and vote on a "feminist motion"

The leadership screed cracked little by little. Single-sex meetings have been in place for a few years to allow women to speak freely. Thanks to the mobilization of some leaders and men more sensitive to the feminist cause - Julie Mandelbaum or William Martinet -, the union goes year in year out to continue its change. "To blame the organization is too easy: it is about individual behaviours, explains Lilâ Le Bas, the current president of Unef. A host of sexist schemes have been deconstructed by our tools, they now allow women to speak without fear of harming the image of the organization".

In 2013, at the Toulouse congress, the UNEF activists voted for a "feminist motion". From the back of the room rises the song of the MLF (Women's Liberation Movement): "We recognize, women. Let's talk, let's look at ourselves. Together, we are oppressed, women. Together, let's revolt. " Half of the room sings to heart and applauds wildly. At the podium, one of their comrades pushes the point: "Tonight the organization is saying goodbye to sexism. Good Djebara! " The pun, transparent, aimed at Azwaw Djebara, vice president of Unef on departure. He is very close to former President Prévost. Indirectly targeted, it reflects a large deep anger in the room, revolted treatment that is reserved for his friend. For him, a man of the direction, it is respected."When Prévost became president of Unef, he twisted, analyzes today a former general secretary of the union. His attitude has unlocked stuff in the heads of other guys in the national office. They felt allowed to mix everything up. "

No medical support or court report
Entered the UNEF in the mid-2000s, A., 30 years old today, illustrates for many the laissez-faire of the UNEF in the face of sexual violence. For several years, the reports about him will go up to the top of the pyramid, without anything move. The testimonies collected by Libération nevertheless seem to allow to trace at least half a dozen criminal facts wrong.

Sometimes, her victims have never spoken, as Laurence*, an activist in the Paris region. Before confiding in Libération, she had never even "said aloud" what happened to her one evening in December 2007, after a party with activists of the Unef in Paris. The hour of the last subway passed, Laurence has to sleep on the spot and settles in a room which one lends to her. A comrade arrives next to her on the mattress on the floor. It's A. "After a while, I felt something hard against my buttocks. I'm panicked: I did not want any relationship before marriage, recalls the former activist. I say no, I ask him to stop. And he says in my ear: "If you want to remain a virgin, you can suck me, or I take you from behind." " Far from stopping in the face of resistance from Laurence, the activist continues: "He touches my buttocks even more intimately with their fingers. " Terrified, she finds the strength to leave the bed, the bedroom and the apartment: " I preferred to be alone in the street at 2 in the morning rather than stay in this situation. " During his years at the UNEF, Laurence never slept with other comrades and will keep anger.

But often, the victims of A. have alerted. In 2008, Sophie*, a provincial activist, sympathizes with him. After an event at his college, he waits at home for his train to Paris. While they are discussing, the young man gets up, goes behind the militant and begins to massage her shoulders. "I went into a state of stupefaction, says Sophie. I remember then being on my bed, I think he carried me there. He acted like an animal, my head dissociated from my body. I see my naked breasts, my body was not responding. He said to me: "Come on, we'll do it quickly, we can do it in fifteen minutes, we both know how good it is."The activist's cell phone rings, interrupting what she now calls sexual assault. She lies, says that her sister arrives. But A. insists. "I just want him to leave, I'm scared. I smile, " recalls Sophie, who gets rid of the activist after a long negotiation. Quickly, she reports what happened to her to the leadership. They believe it but they do not act. "We'll have an eye on it," says Sophie. But no medical accompaniment or court report. Nothing. Perhaps because he is the archetype of a dedicated unionist, always available, able to stand up to other union forces. "A. was the complete activist," confirms a former executive.

Protecting Individuals
Today, A. does not dispute the facts, although he explains that he did not know at the time that this was under the criminal code. In the long written answer which he sent to Libération, the thirty-year-old teacher in Ile-de-France recounts his heavy family history. He does not give in - "the facts are true" - but he explains his background: a father who mistreats his children and ends up convicted for the rape of his two sisters and a young cousin, the family that explodes in flight, the union as a refuge. "When I arrived at university, the Unef seemed like an outlet for my family context," he explains.

After passing through several Parisian schools, he landed at the University Paris-I to finish his studies. The Sorbonne, the largest local UNEF, including several activists will speak of having been victims of sexual assault on his part in the year 2013. Like Diane*, who spent an evening at home with other members of Unef, in July. The last subway missed, she asks to sleep there. "He proposed to me to sleep in his bed telling me that he was going to sleep somewhere else," recalls the activist, who falls asleep before waking up with a start in the morning. "He had his hands on my breasts and in my panties. I tried to push him away, he insisted. I dropped from bed to escape and left without saying anything. "This time, A. argues the misunderstanding but again recognizes a sexual assault. After much hesitation, Diane talks about what happened to Marie D., the local president, who decides to conduct her investigation and accumulates several stories of aggression. At the start of the academic year, Diane worries: "I was afraid for new students who did not know him. We organized ourselves never to leave him alone in the room with the younger ones. " Individual protections. The actions of the militants are no longer described euphemized the local ranks. "Before, all these cases were below the waterline," says a former leader. "The water level is falling and issues are coming back to the surface. Little by little, thanks to UNEF's progress on these questions, A. was less and less protected".

But it will take more time for management to officially position itself on his case. Given the testimony that accumulates, many women will try to obtain a sanction from the board of control of Unef against A. What they are denied. The body is nevertheless responsible for deciding on the most serious cases and allows - normally - the official exclusion of activists. "In 2006, during the campaign against the CPE, members of a minority trend of Unef had punctured the tires of one of our trucks in the middle of a protest, they were expelled this commission," says a former leader. Nothing like that for sexual abuse. "We were told that it could not be about sexual violence, we were strolled", remembers Lauranne Witt, a former Unef executive, who hoped to put in place a valuable tool in case similar events happen again. "The way we managed this is very revealing, says Sebastien Chaillou, treasurer of the Unef at the time. It was not organized and it was about the will of a few people. We protected the union, but not its members."

"A written record"

In February 2014, the National Council, which includes all Local Presidents, will end up voting on a resolution directly referring to A's behaviour. "It happened, is happening and will happen that women in the organization are victims of violence or harassment. It is important to be able to provide an answer that will build the union", reads the text, but A. was erased at the last minute. We still pray the activist not to come in the official meetings of the UNEF.

Far from the "militant cadres", A. continues however to frequent the friendly evenings and maintains his connections to the Unef. Having become a teacher, he takes his card at Snes and tries to recruit supervisors. In early summer 2015, he posted an ad on Facebook. Recently enrolled at the Unef, looking for a job, Charlotte*, a barely major activist, contacted him without worry. She finds A. in a bar in Paris: "He paid me glasses without asking my opinion. One, two, three, five ... Then we went to his place. I was drunk, I drank too much, " says Charlotte. A. undressed. "I was lying on the bed, he undressed me, tells the young woman.And then he was on me and penetrated me. I told him that I did not want and that I was tired, he tried to kiss me, I was totally stuck. "

Today, A. disputes this version of the facts: for him, this sexual intercourse was consensual. Charlotte will erase this moment from her memory for months. But in March 2016, she finally decides to file a complaint of "rape". Near the Halles, in the centre of Paris, a police officer at the police station reception asked her to tell him about her rape. Outside and without a written statement. "His reaction was between humiliation and the gritty joke, I left," says Charlotte. She then crosses the Seine and goes to another police station. There, listening to her story, a young police officer dismisses her. For him, "it was not a rape," and "it was enough to just say no".

On the advice of an officer and a police more responsive to Charlotte eventually came to the head of Paris's 3rd judicial police district. She remembers the brigadier who never asks her about the facts but about her reactions: "Why did you not fight?", "Why did not you scream?" ... It also makes Charlotte understand that with a complaint, she will face her attacker and that the procedure will be long and expensive. As a result, she is content with a diary entry. Consulted by Libération, the entry of March 17, 2016, ended with these words: "I just want a written record of these events to exist". A little paper evidence in the middle of the silence.



* names of individuals have been changed

Read more...

Wednesday, February 14, 2018

France: We call for action and strike for women's rights on March 8th!

Feminist struggles have won rights and made progress towards equality between women and men. But this equality is far from effective. This is why the day of March 8th does not "celebrate" and is not the "day of the woman" but that of the fight for the rights of women! March 8 is an international day of convergence of all our struggles, those of women here and elsewhere.


Equality between women and men is unavoidable for us: it contributes to social progress. To allow inequality to continue, to exert violence against women and girls, is to bear the responsibility that retrograde ideas progress, patriarchy endures. And we will not stop repeating: the "cause of women" is neither secondary nor a communication operation. It is not limited to feminizing management positions by forgetting the majority of women glued to the sticky floor of part-time and precarious work. It requires not only political will at all times, but also significant human and financial resources to achieve it and sanctions against employers who do not respect professional equality. Our conclusion is irrevocable: the French government never put them in place. The employers put all their energy to fight any restrictive measure. And so in 2018, the urgency to achieve equality is still there.

Many women are mobilized. They denounce sexist and sexual violence at home, in public, and at work. They protest about persistent gender stereotypes in the media, at school, in public and private life. They condemn precariousness, poverty and unemployment. They refuse inequalities at work in terms of wages, access to employment, career, working time. And they recall the consequences of all these inequalities on the size of women's pensions. They denounce the consequences of the unequal distribution of domestic tasks on women's lives. They fight against the questioning of the right to abortion, to access contraception. They require the guarantee of public services for all, services to develop and balance across the territories, from early childhood to loss of autonomy. They fight lesbophobia and all the stereotypes relating to any other marginalised identity. They support migrant and refugee women. They do not admit to discrimination, such as against women with disabilities ...

This long list shows that there is a social system behind all these inequalities. This domination we reject and refuse. Until it stops. And for that we call to act throughout the territory, through strike actions, walkouts, rallies, demonstrations. Equality between women and men is a question of social justice and democracy. It is a lever to win the emancipation of all.

This is why we call on all our organizations to prepare the mobilizations of 8 March 2018 for the territories as a whole.

First Signatories: Collectif National pour les Droits des Femmes, Confédération Générale du Travail, Fédération Syndicale Unitaire, Union Syndicale Solidaires, Action Aid France Peuples Solidaires, Femmes Egalité, Union Nationale des Étudiants de France, Chiennes de garde, Encore féministes, Zeromacho, Réseau Féministe "Ruptures", Le Planning Familial, Mouvement National des Chômeurs et Précaires , ATTAC, Femmes Libres Radio Libertaire, Marche Mondiale des Femmes…

Read more...

Monday, November 16, 2015

Silencing who? How Greer's defenders trivilise transphobia and trans women's experiences

TW: Discussion of intersex experiences, transmisogyny; transphobia; genitalia; violence against trans women; holocaust denial

Lisbeth Latham
 
On November 18, Germaine Greer will be speaking at Cardiff University on the topic of Women and Power: Lessons of the 20th Century. The lecture, which is at the invitation of Cardiff University's administration has been at the center of controversy after students from the Cardiff Women’s Association (CWA) launched a petition calling for the University to withdraw its invitation to Greer. The call for the invitation to be withdrawn is on the basis of Greer’s well documented transmisogyny. This call has seen a large wave of condemnation for being an attack on free speech, with criticism coming from across the political spectrum. From the right-wing Spectator and Spiked Online to the Australian far-left newspaper Red Flag (although with a title denouncing “left authoritarianism” you would be forgiven for thinking it was an article written by Andrew Bolt or another right-wing commentator in the News Corporation stable). In general the critics of the petition present a poor understanding of the issues at stake around feminism and transphobia along with a superficial understanding of free speech in modern capitalism.
 
On October 15, Cardiff University announced that the speaker for its annual lecture, to honour former Cardiff deputy vice-chancellor Hadyn Ellis, would be Greer.

On October 23, the Cardiff Women’s Association launched their change.org petition calling for the University to cancel the lecture. The petition states in part
 
“Greer has demonstrated time and time again her misogynistic views towards trans women, including continually misgendering trans women and denying the existence of transphobia altogether … 
 
“While debate in a University should be encouraged, hosting a speaker with such problematic and hateful views towards marginalised and vulnerable groups is dangerous. Allowing Greer a platform endorses her views, and by extension, the transmisogyny which she continues to perpetuate.
“Universities should prioritise the voices of the most vulnerable on their campuses, not invite speakers who seek to further marginalise them”.
In response, the university announced that the lecture would go ahead with vice-chancellor, Professor Colin Riordan, saying in a statement:
 
“Our events include speakers with a range of views, all of which are rigorously challenged and debated. This event will be no different.
"At Cardiff University we work hard to provide a positive and welcoming space for LGBT+ people and we are in consultation with student and staff groups to ensure that the views of LGBT+ people are represented at our events.
"We in no way condone discriminatory comments of any kind."
 
While Greer initially indicated that she would not proceed with the lecture, on the basis that she was too old to deal with protesters, she has since indicated that she we will speak.
 
It is unclear what further action the Cardiff Women’s Society or other supporters of trans rights will take either in the lead up to or on the day of the lecture.

While one might have thought that the decision by the University that the lecture would go ahead would have been the end of the issue. Instead we have seen sustained criticism of what is unprecedented in the Anglophone world - feminist students calling for a speech they think is problematic to be cancelled.  This call has been viewed as either a threat to freedom of speech (liberal and right wing commentators) or as building and strengthening authoritarian and repressive institutions (far-left commentators).
 
A number of writers have variously expressed forms of surprise that a feminist organisation would object to Greer speaking at their university, or that they would would call Greer a misogynist. However this surprise shows both a limited knowledge of Greer’s writings and other public statements but also of the long struggles over inclusion and exclusion of voices within feminism.
 
Greer’s misogyny is not limited to her transmisogyny towards trans women. It extends to her broader view that women with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome are not “female” and thus should not be raised as girls (which given that most people with CAIS are not identified as such until they are at least into puberty - this would seem difficult unless all children born with vaginas are to be screened to see if they have XY chromosomes at birth - an incredibly invasive position which Greer has expressed support for) and a position which is at odds with her article on South African athlete Caster Semenya, which contains both icredibly transmisogynistic language and language which is obnoxiously stigmatising in its discussion of intersex experiences. However she also comes down on the side of supporting Semenya’s right to be able to compete as a woman - which in many ways show the contrarian and internally inconsistent character of Greer’s thinking. Greer is also famous for making sexist statements about other women including former Australian prime-minister Julia Gillard. Indeed Greer’s attitude towards other women has been described as “unsisterly”. All of this should mean that the suggestion that Greer is misogynistic should not be a surprise.
 
The history of feminism is the history of struggle over who is and isn’t to be included in the movement, with those being marginalised within the movement often being labeled as the problem. As Sara Ahmed noted in February, when Betty Friedan sought to exclude lesbians from the National Organisation of Women she labeled them as a lavender menace and that “when black women and women of colour spoke of racism in feminism we were heard, we are heard, as angry, mean and spiteful, as hurting white women’s feelings”. It shouldn’t be surprising that trans women would push back against those who advocate not only their exclusion from feminism but deny their existence and make statements that legitimate violence against them. It is also not surprising that the struggle against this discrimination would be seen as the problem, but more on that later.
 
Central to the narrative in articles critical of the student petition, is the idea that the student petition is a serious attack on Greer’s right to free speech and an attempt to censor her. I must say that it is an interesting violation of free speech where a person not only gets to go ahead with her, filled to capacity, lecture at a university, but also appear on multiple television programs and have their “silenced” arguments repeated in hundreds of articles globally. Of course you might say, “that is because we have resisted the effort to silence Greer! What would have happened if the university had relented to the demand!!!” Well probably that Greer would not have spoken at a lecture on November 18, but she would have continued to have been able to able to sell her more than 17 books, make media appearances and have articles in newspapers around the globe, again it is an odd form of “silencing”.
 
At the same time those defending Greer’s right to freedom of speech have made it very clear that they believe that it is absolutely wrong for students to call for the lecture to be cancelled. Suggesting that these authors do not believe that there is a right to discuss whether particular ideas have a place in a modern society - irrespective of how little capacity that the person or persons discussing the legitimacy of the ideas might have to actually silence those ideas. Of course, given that the petition was aimed at individuals who could restrict access to a platform, if such a restriction constituted an unconscionable restriction of free speech, the petition would be problematic. So there are two questions - would the canceling of lecture constitute a violation of free speech and is there an absolute right to freedom of speech?
 
As both Timothy Laurie and Jeff Sparrow point out, there is no right to speak at a university lecture. In selecting Greer to speak, the university decided to not invite other speakers - we don’t know who those speakers were or why those speakers were not chosen, but was that a violation of their right to freedom speech? Also universities exercise significant power over the ability to speak on campus. Cardiff University, in its Code of Practice to Ensure Freedom of Speech, reserves the right to both refuse a venue booking for a speaker or to cancel a meeting “in light of changed circumstances, or factors not known at the time of application”.
 
Of course a university can effectively block a speaker even if they don’t formally block it. Last year, a friend sort to organise a public meeting examining “Human Rights in the Basque Country” at a university in Sydney. They submitted a booking application form with their details and indicated that members of the Basque Sydney Club Gure Txoko would be participating. The university then provided these details to the NSW Police to determine if any of those involved were linked with the Basque armed nationalist organisation Euskadi Ta Askatasuna. The police informed the university this was not the case, but that some of the Basques were former political prisoners, although in fact none of them were - the university indicated the booking could go ahead with a booking fee of $700. Unable to afford this cost the student association were approached to see if they could help with the booking - the association’s president informed my friend that this was not possible as the university had told the student association not to help with the booking as the university did not want to be accused of supporting terrorism. In the end the meeting was held at another university.
 
A number of liberal writers while defending Greer’s “right” to freedom of speech suggest there are limits to freedom speech. Helen Lewis argues that Greer does not advocate violence against trans women which she argues “used to be the rationale for ‘no platform’” - however in Lewis’s view even if Greer was actively advocating violence against trans women that would only be a basis to cancel the talk if that was an intended component of the talk, arguing that no platforming was only applied to holocaust denier David Irving “when he was talking about Holocaust denial”. I think that Lewis is being entirely disingenuous with this argument, because if David Irving was invited to speak at a University - even it was not on the topic of the Holocaust - you could expect widespread anger and outrage and attempts to shut that meeting down.
 
A central feature of the argument of Cardiff University management and many commentators is either a denial or downplaying of Greer’s transphobia and its impact on people’s lives. Cardiff’s vice chancellor says they would never support discriminatory language at an event. However this position would only be  possible if they intended to vet everything Greer says, also all questions that she would be asked, or if you don’t believe that Greer’s views are discriminatory.
 
A counter petition calling on Cardiff University to allow Greer to speak argues that “This reactionary tactic of calling a woman a 'transphobe' is no different than calling someone a 'commie' in 1960's America during the cold war. It's a slur that contains no analysis, just an emotional response that is primarily used against women who talk about women's biological realities, not gender identities.” Aside from the reality that not just women are called transphobes, this hyperbole is detached from any analysis of the difference in power relations between the US state and its promoters in the 1960s and trans women - who as a group are highly marginalised across the world.  
 
It is true that Greer doesn’t advocate physical violence against trans women. However she has actively called for discrimination against trans women, including opposing the appointment of Rachel Padman as a fellow at the all woman Newnham College at Cambridge University - on the basis that Padman was not legally a woman (while this might make it lawful discrimination, it is discrimination none the less). Also, in arguing that trans women are rapists, she advocates a position that helps to both legitimise the violence of other transphobes towards trans women - particularly those trans exclusionary radical feminists (TERFs), such as Kathy Brennan, who conduct online harassment campaigns against trans women - including seeking to get them fired from their jobs and stop them accessing medical treatment (an activity that would be helped by Greer’s views that gender reassignment surgery is unethical). These views also help to buttress campaigns by both TERFs and more traditional right-wing activists against anti-discrimination legislation including the ability to access toilets of their affirmed gender and the ability to access medical treatments to assist in their gender affirmation.
 
A number of commentators, including Cardiff’s vice-chancellor, argue that inviting Greer, or any other speaker, to speak does not mean endorsing their views. However it does legitimise them, which is reflected in the publicity for the November 18 lecture describing Greer as “widely considered one of the most influential commentators on 21st century life”.
 
Louise O’Shea writing in Red Flag, acknowledges that Greer’s views are transphobic, but also argues that it is wrong to describe Greer as a bigot - because her views “reflect her particular history and framework for understanding gender and sexual oppression”. O’Shea also argues that we have to distinguish between Greer’s views and those of the  “ideological representatives of the oppressor which she is not” . The Merriam Webster dictionary defines bigot as “a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially  one who regards or treats the members of a group with hatred and intolerance” - personally this would seem an accurate description of Greer’s attitudes towards trans women. Attitudes she has expressed for more than thirty years despite constant engagement with her around these ideas by the trans community. Moreover there is very little difference between Greer’s views towards trans women and right wing commentators, which is why there have been a large number of right wing papers defending Greer’s transphobia in the current dispute - despite their loathing of Greer’s feminism.

O’Shea’s understanding of Greer’s views on trans women, like a number of commentators, is limited to the “questioning of the legitimacy of trans women’s status as women and arguing that trans women being responsible for sexism” - which doesn’t really reflect this part of the position of Greer and other trans exclusionary feminists that trans women help to reinforce the gender binary - at the same time as they reject the concept of gender. Thus O’Shea’s solution, which she argues the petitioners refuse to do - is to mobilise the arguments that the left has developed to “successfully contest and discredit” Greer’s ideas - exactly which arguments O’Shea means are not specified in her article or anything published by Socialist Alternative in the last 18 years. O’Shea appears to be completely oblivious to the daily struggle by trans women and their supporters to challenge to transphobic and transmisogynistic views particularly within feminism and the left.

Moreover O’Shea, like the majority of Greer’s defenders, both downplays trans women’s experiences of oppression and completely misunderstand Greer’s position regarding trans women. While O’Shea acknowledges that trans women “suffer terrible oppression” her argument does not engage with the personal consequence of this oppression, particularly the experiences of violence and disadvantage that trans women experience. As Sølvi and Shanice point out in their contribution, members of the trans community experience significant levels of violence and marginalisation  (although these experiences are uneven and vary both within and between countries and are heavily mediated by intersections with other experiences of oppression) as a consequence trans people as a group have higher rates of suicide than either the straight or the broader LGBTI community.
 
While the majority of critics of the Cardiff petition are concerned by it as an attack on freedom of speech - for O’Shea, Socialist Alternative and a range of left activists - the petition reflects a right wing authoritarianism within the student left, an authoritarianism that risks threatening both the strengthening of University administrations, stifling discussion amongst the left and undermining political consciousness and organising capacity of workers and students..  

Central to O’Shea’s argument is that the petition reflects an authoritarian outlook of sections of the student left. I know for many readers the idea of a member of Socialist Alternative complaining about authoritarian petitioners came as comedic relief when they read the article. The first time I read it I had to get up off the floor. Wipe tears of pain and laughter from my eyes. Then check that I hadn't split my stomach (having only recently had abdominal surgery this was a real danger).

Of course it is easy to laugh at Socialist Alternative but the matter of promoting authoritarianism is a serious allegation and should be taken seriously. To be fair to Socialist Alternative the problem for them is not having a petition - they would freely admit they use petitions all of time (although you have to use the phrase "use petitions" very loosely it is probably more accurate to say that they ask people to write their details on pieces of paper to give them an excuse to talk to them) but the intent of the petition. By calling on the University to cancel Greer’s lecture O’Shea argues that the students are:
 
  • “treating the university administration as the legitimate gatekeeper of public debate and saviour of the oppressed, student unions only strengthen the capacity of university managements to undermine staff and students’ rights in the long run.
  • “[doing]] nothing to strengthen the collective organisations of staff and students
  • “[not doing] anything help develop the political consciousness needed for our side to fight against injustice and oppression, including that against trans people”.

O’Shea counterposes to a petition on the university the organising of collective protests - while other commentators have suggested the organising of an alternative forum or seeking to insert a pro-trans speaker at the lecture or to challenge Greer from the floor of lecture. These arguments are problematic on a number of levels and generally do not reflect any sort of reality or deal with the concerns that trans women  have with Greer.

First, it appears odd having drawn the conclusion that Greer’s position is not bigoted and “it is not the job of the left to call for her to be silence her”, that O’Shea would argue that there are any mechanisms by which an attempt to stop Greer from speaking could be viewed as acceptable.

Secondly if you argue that a petition on the university to withdraw an invitation to speak treats the administration as “the legitimate gatekeeper of public debate” then having a protest calling on the university to withdraw the invitation would do the same - as any protest which falls short of an insurrectionary seizure of power is reliant upon applying pressure through the mobilisation of social power to force the social actor with the power to implement its demands. It could be argued that the intention of a protest would not have to been to achieve a cancellation of the lecture, but instead to be disruptive and articulate opposition to transphobia. However what happens if the speaker or the university threaten to cancel the lecture? Would we cancel the protest, or should their be liaisons with the university and Greer about the forms of protests are acceptable and wouldn’t lead to the university exercising its power as a gatekeeper?

Finally, O’Shea’s argument would suggest that it is fundamentally wrong for progressive forces to call on institutions and the state to either adopt anti-discrimination policies or laws and more particularly to demand that that they consistently apply them. Like other institutions, universities adopt policies through which they purport to protect staff and students from oppressive behaviour - however the application of these policies is inconsistent and prioritises the interests of the institution over the interests of those facing discrimination. It is in the interest of all those who are opposed to oppressive behaviours to demand that institutions live up to its self-professed aspirations as a mechanism by which we are able to eliminate oppression and highlight the limits of institutions’ willingness to combat oppression. This approach has important historical roots most obviously during the civil rights movement in the US as reactionary southern Whites - through the police and the KKK - sought to terrorise Black communities that were fighting against segregation and for voting rights. In response to this violence members of Black communities from across the US called for the federal government to intervene to protect  communities, including through the deployment of troops to the south. These demands were supported by the US Socialist Workers Party which argued:
 
“If there were any truth to the declaration for democracy and freedom that come out of Washington every day the brazen challenge of the Mississippi lynchers would be taken up by the government. Troops would be sent immediately to Mississippi. The lynchers would be brought to justice and the dictatorship of Jim Crow would be removed so the people of Mississippi could freely elect their own government
 
“The two capitalist parties, Democratic and Republican, that share the power in Washington are not going to take such a step of their own volition. They are too preoccupied with the filthy game of courting the Southern Dixiecrats as a “balance of power” to even utter one squeak of protest against what is happening in Mississippi.
 
“Moreover, the rule of Big Business in the US is bound up with the maintenance of the open-shop, cheap-labor system in the South. The open-shop South, in turn, depends on the perpetuation of the Jim Crow system. And the Jim Crow system cannot survive without racist terror”.
 
While these demands were not always successful in forcing the US federal government to act - they were instrumental in achieving the deployment of troops to Little Rock, Arkansas in 1957 which enabled the desegregation of Central High School in that city.
 
Far from building illusions, calling on a university, or any other public institution, to live up to their own rhetoric on being opposed to discrimination is central to shattering illusions in those institutions. If the organisations fail to live up to their rhetoric we demonstrate that it is just that, rhetoric. If they respond to the call, and uphold their rhetoric, they will attempt to paint their act as reflecting their “strong commitment” to the issue - but that’s realpolitik turning a defeat into victory, turning something you did not want to do into something you always intended to do, the task for those who consistently oppose oppression primarily is to oppose that oppression - if there is a danger in people developing illusions in an institution then it is necessary to combat those illusions by arguing against them not by avoiding placing pressure on institutions to act.
 
A big problem I have with O’Shea’s argument is that it is not consistent with Socialist Alternative’s political practice in other campaigns. Socialist Alternative in their publications have reported favourably on:
 
  • Petitions calling on Australian governments to change the Marriage Act to allow Marriage Equality
  • A student campaign, involving their own members, calling on Sydney University to sack Barry Spurr over the sexist and racist content of his emails that were published by New Matilda in October 2014, this campaign also featured a change.org petition calling on the University to discipline Spurr.
 
O’Shea’s arguments relating to the impact of the petition on political consciousness are untrue and ignore possible reasons for petitioning the university administration beyond illusions in the administration. I don’t know the motivations of the members of the CWA in launching their petition beyond what is written in the petition, however I can think of a reason why you would launch a petition before organising any protests (I say before as petitions and protests are not counterposed) and that is there is limited consciousness around transphobia in our society and it would be far easier (at this stage) to gather signatures on a petition (particularly an online petition) than to have an effective protest around Greer’s lecture - if confronted by a similar situation at an Australian university you could not rely on Socialist Alternative members to support that protest (again unless they are happy to protest against someone who is a legitimate part of the left and the left shouldn’t be silencing). However as one Facebook user argued, in organising the petition the CWA are asserting “that transphobes should not be welcome to speak on campus, which blatantly helps to develop political consciousness. Signaling solidarity with trans women does strengthen collective organisation of staff and students in that it challenges divisively oppressive ideas”, moreover a petitions such as those on Change.org enable the initiators to communicate with those who have signed it,  which may lay the basis for further organisation, including protests, in the future.
 
Finally there are a number of problems with the arguments of those who suggest that rather than a petition it would have been better to organise an alternative forum; seek to be on the platform with Greer, or to have individuals challenge Greer from the floor. First there is nothing counterposed between the petition and any of these actions. Secondly to suggest that it would be better for trans women and their supporters to simply organise an alternative forum ignores the very real difference in both resources and legitimacy between a major public lecture organised by a university and a public meeting organised by a university women’s collective. Those arguing that it would be better to try and be on the platform with Greer - both ignore the reality that this would fundamentally change the forum into a major discussion of Greer’s views of trans women - a discussion that the university clearly isn’t interested in - it also ignores the university’s motivation in the forum, which is to boost the university by hosting a prominent speaker - which would not be helped by a debate around the bigoted views of that speaker. The limited chance of success for this approach is also highlighted by the inability of trans women to get speakers onto panels featuring Greer at various feminist conferences. The ability to debate Greer is also limited by Greer’s intellectual dishonesty when confronted around her transmisogyny. When confronted Greer tends to use one of four tactics:
 
  • denies that she has made the transmisogynist statement (then subsequently keeps repeating it)
  • distorts and minimises the transmisogynist statement (then subsequently keeps on repeating it)
  • complains about "why do I  have to talk about everything?" (when people are simply challenging her on her transmisogynist statements)
  • accuses the questioner of being a misogynist  

When you combine Greer’s approach to “debate” and combine it with the power of being a speaker with a moderator picking who will ask questions and stopping questions/statements which “go too long”  it makes intervening from the floor of a lecture extremely difficult and puts those intervening at a considerable disadvantage. An additional problem with a debate or challenging from the floor is that it suggests that Greer’s views are up for debate. As Sarah Ahmed has pointed out “When you have ‘dialogue or debate’ with those who wish to eliminate you from the conversation (because they do not recognise what is necessary for your survival or because they don’t even think your existence is possible), then “dialogue and debate” becomes another technique of elimination. A refusal to have some dialogues and some debates can thus be a key tactic for survival”.
The public discourse around the CWA’s petition demonstrates the widespread problem of the prioritisation of the ”right” to make discriminatory and oppressive statements over the rights of marginalised communities to live free of oppression and to challenge those who promote discriminatory attitudes towards them. As Sarah Ahmed has argued any feminism [and left] that participate in the deligitimisation of the oppressed acting against their oppression are not worthy of the name and indeed are part of the problem.

 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Read more...

About This Blog

Revitalising Labour attempts to reflect on efforts to rebuild the labour movement internationally, emphasising the role that left-wing political currents can play in this process. It welcomes contributions on union struggles, internal renewal processes within the labour movement and the struggle against capitalism and imperialism.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by Ourblogtemplates.com 2008

Back to TOP  

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Australia License.