Connect with us

Commentary

Gender Criticals are the Womens’ Auxiliary to the neo fascists

“We need more violence from the Trump supporters. Choke a bitch. Choke a tranny. Get your fingers around the windpipe. Get a gun”

Published

on

Image by Charles Hutchins via Creative Commons

By Brynn Tannehill | FAIRFAX COUNTY, Va. – LGBTQ+ leaders, the public, the media, and Democratic officials need to have a reckoning with what the self-proclaimed “Gender Critical” (i.e. TERF, or “Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist) movement is all about.

This isn’t a group of people who simply have “reasonable concerns” or merely think the trans movement has gone a little too far. This is a movement that is inextricably linked with both the religious right and the neo-fascist far right. They share the belief that the optimum number of transgender people is zero, and are willing to use both the power of government and crowd-sourced harassment to achieve this goal.

This was always their goal. In Janice Raymond’s book “The Transsexual Empire,” she declared that “the problem of transsexualism would best be served by morally mandating it out of existence” by eliminating the medical and legal systems supporting trans people. 

In recent years, the most prominent document outlining the platform of the movement has been the Declaration on Women’s Sex-based Rights. It calls for the same policies as Raymond: ending legal recognition of trans identities and legal recognition of them as a class. It argues that the legal existence of trans people as a class is discriminatory against women, and against UN recognized rights. Similarly, it argues that all transition-related medical procedures are part of “gender identity”, which they believe is inherently antithetical to women’s rights, and should therefore be banned. The only right for trans people that the document enumerates is that people should be able to dress as they wish.

This isn’t some fringe document. The signatories are a who’s who list of anti-trans activists in the US and UK, including Kathleen Stock, Kate Harris, Julia Beck, Ann Sinnot, Kara Dansky, Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull, Jennifer Bilek, Maya Forstater, and Stephanie Davies-Arai. Sinnot founded LGB Alliance, Stock is on the board, and Harris is the executive director. Thus, the positions taken by the Declaration are firmly at the center of the anti-trans movement and not a fringe that can be easily dismissed as such.

These enumerated policy goals are nearly identical to those listed by the Family Research Council (a powerful anti-LGBTQ+ hate group) in a 2015 white paper. The FRC’s manifesto on trans people also called for ending all legal recognition of transgender identities, all legal protections for them as a class, and sharply limiting their access to transition-related medical care. The FRC’s interpretation of “sex” and “gender” is nearly identical to that of the Declaration. Another conservative internal policy document by Project Blitz identifies “transgenderism” as a communicable public health hazard, which the government has a duty and a right to stamp out by any legal means available.

Then there’s the far violent right which has increasingly targeted transgender people in recent years. Media figures who serve as a gateway to the violent far right (such as Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro, and Charlie Kirk) have increasingly told their audiences that trans people represent an existential threat to the US national security, Western civilization, and the perpetuation of the species. Gavin McInnes, founder of the Proud Boys’ far right militia which was involved in the January 6th insurrection, admonished his followers that, “We need more violence from the Trump supporters. Choke a bitch. Choke a tranny. Get your fingers around the windpipe. Get a gun.”

History provides proof that, given the opportunity, the American right would accept a “soft” eradication of LGBTQ+ people. When AIDS was killing gay men at a frightening rate in the 80’s and 90’s, they refused to do anything because they saw it as a solution to a problem, God’s rightful vengeance upon the wicked. Right wing radio hosts who paved the way for the likes of Shapiro and Carlson gleefully read the obituaries of gay men who died, while playing Queen’s “Another One Bites the Dust” in the background. 

Thus, no one should doubt that the religious and neo-fascist right also believe the optimum number of trans people is zero, and that the government and concerned private citizens should do everything possible to help reach that goal.   

There’s a long history of collaboration between old-school Gender Criticals and the religious right. Lierre Keith of Deep Green Resistance is a signatory to the declaration. She was also an anti-pornography crusader in the 80s who made common cause with the religious right at the time, as were many others. 

Coordination between these three factions on trans people has been growing. The LGB Alliance (an anti-trans group that claims to be about LGBTQ+ issues, but only lobbies against trans people) recently hosted a conference in London. American writer Andy Ngo was there and had a press pass to the event. For those not aware of Ngo’s work, he primarily provides glowing coverage of Proud Boys to far-right outlets like the Post Millennial, serving as a sort of Wal*Mart Leni Riefenstahl to neckbeards trying to join the Sturmabteilung 75 years too late. 

GCs can claim that they’re opposed to discrimination against trans people, but it is literally baked into their demands. One of the current legal flashpoints is the religious right and GCs claim that they have a protected right to misgender their students and coworkers. Also, when a group of people is not recognizable as a class under the law (as the declaration treats sex as an inalterable binary, and gender as a concept discriminatory towards women, and the lone use of the word transgender put in scare quotes), it is almost impossible to protect them from discrimination by either private or public entities. At the same time, GC leaders more or less encourage people to harass trans people for existing.

GC leaders also claim they oppose violence against transgender people. However, the neo-fascist right that they have cozied up to is all for it. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, Family Policy Alliance, and the FRC, once lamented to his audience that America needed more real men to shoot trans people who use the wrong bathroom. 

Kathleen Stock, while defending a ban on trans people from bathrooms, acknowledged that while some cisgender women would be “missexed” when trying to use the bathroom, this was merely a “regrettable cost” for the greater good of women. What Stock is tacitly acknowledging is that there inevitably are consequences to a person being perceived as using the wrong bathroom. This includes potential arrest, strip searches, violent beatings, sexual battery, and (as James Dobson suggested is appropriate), death. It is implausible to suggest that she believes that it always ends with the police showing up and the individual quietly leaving. Instead, the inevitable violence is merely a necessary evil for the greater good.

Should they all get their wishes, day to day life for transgender people becomes nigh impossible unless they never leave their house. They won’t be able to get an accurate government ID. They won’t be able use public bathrooms except those few marked single-stall unisex, and they won’t be able to get medical care related to transition. Going to work or school will be impossible: no bathrooms that you can use regularly, and always some teacher, student, or co-worker exercising their right to mock and humiliate you. Violence against trans people will continue soaring as they are demonized and othered as part of a terror campaign of stochastic violence that the police do nothing to prevent.

As a result, trans people who are in the closet are heavily pressured to remain there. Those who have already come out and transitioned will have to consider leaving the country, as some have already done in Hungary and the UK. When committing cultural genocide, you don’t have to murder people; simply making life so miserable that they flee or go underground is enough.

We can already see these sorts of things happening around the world. In Hungary, which American conservatives hold up as the example of how to do culture wars right, women’s and gender studies programs has been banned, as has recognition of trans and intersex people as a class, and changing gender markers on government documents.   In the UK a person making an appointment to see a gender clinic today for an intake appointment can expect to wait approximately 1296 years before being seen, which is tantamount to a ban on medical care. In Russia, Vladimir Putin (whom the religious right also loves) has branded acceptance of trans people a “crime against humanity,” while LGBT people in the country are beaten with impunity by street thugs who support Putin’s moral order.

These scenarios are coming like a freight train for trans people in the US. The Republican party has been radicalized and consumed by people pushing their hardest for us to become more like Russia and Hungary. GOP think-tanks like the Claremont Institute are openly declaring that they will seize power for generations in order to get rid of things like “transgenderism”. In an America that has been made great again, there can be little room for trans folk when they’ve been demonized as the epitome of everything wrong with a pluralistic society.

We need to stop pretending there are two equally valid sides to this. It’s not trans people versus women with “legitimate concerns”. It’s trans people versus an alliance of well-funded religious authoritarians worthy of the Republic of Gilead, neo-fascist goons looking for their complimentary brown shirt, and ostensible “liberals” who have decided that these movements are their golden ticket to a world with far fewer (out) trans people.

*********************

Brynn Tannehill is a senior analyst at a Washington D.C. area think-tank, and is the author of “American Fascism: How the GOP is Subverting Democracy.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Commentary

It doesn’t take a miracle

Hanukkah a time for LGBTQ Jews to celebrate full identity

Published

on

(Public domain photo)

For Jews around the world, Sunday night marked the beginning of Hanukkah. The story of Hanukkah celebrates the liberation of Jerusalem by the Maccabees, a small and poorly armed group of Jews who took on, and defeated, one of the world’s most powerful armies. 

Upon entering Jerusalem, the Maccabees saw that there was only enough oil to light the Temple’s eternal flame for one night. But the oil lasted eight nights — enough time for new oil to be prepared. The eternal flame remained lit, and light triumphed over darkness.

The story of Hanukkah was a miracle. While we celebrate and commemorate that miracle, we should also remember that it doesn’t take a miracle for one person to make a difference. 

The entire world is shaking beneath our feet. The climate is in crisis and our planet is in danger. A viral contagion has claimed the lives of millions, and there’s no clear end in sight. Creeping authoritarianism threatens the entire world, including here at home.

Sometimes it seems like it will take a miracle to solve even one of these problems. The reason these problems seem so overwhelming is because they are — no one person can fix it themselves.

Here in the LGBTQ community, we have made enormous strides, and we ought to be proud of them. But there is so much more work to be done.

Not everyone in our community is treated equally, and not everyone has the same access to opportunity. Black, brown and trans LGBTQ people face systemic and structural disadvantages and discrimination and are at increased risk of violence and suicide. It must stop.

These are big problems too, and the LGBTQ people as a collective can help make the changes we need so that light triumphs over darkness. But it doesn’t take a miracle for individuals to light the spark.

Our movement is being held back by the creeping and dangerous narrative that insists that we choose between our identities instead of embracing all of them. 

The presentation of this false choice has fallen especially hard on LGBTQ Jews, many of whom feel a genuine connection to and support for Israel. They feel marginalized when asked to sideline their identity by being told that the world’s only Jewish state shouldn’t even have a place on the map. And they feel attacked when asked about the Israeli government’s policies during a conflict, as if they have some obligation to condemn them and take a stand simply because of their faith.

One of the ways we can shine our light is to fight for an LGBTQ community that is truly inclusive.

This holiday season, pledge to celebrate all aspects of your identity and the rights of LGBTQ people to define their own identities and choose their own paths. If you feel the pressure to keep any part of your identity in the closet, stand up to it and refuse to choose. 

In the face of enormous challenges that require collective action, we must not give up on our power as individuals to do what’s right. It doesn’t take a miracle to do that.

The tradition of lighting the menorah each night represents ensuring the continuity of that eternal flame. One of the reasons the Hanukkah menorah is displayed prominently in the windows of homes and in public squares is because the light isn’t meant to be confined to the Jewish home. The light is for everyone — and a reminder that we can share it with the world every day to try to make it better.

As long as we keep fighting for justice, we don’t need to perform miracles. But we do need to do our part so that light triumphs over darkness.

It is up to each of us to map out what we can contribute to create a truly inclusive LGBTQ community. This holiday season, be the light. If you can, donate to a group that helps lift LGBTQ youth in crisis. Volunteer your time to fight for the rights and the lives of trans people. And be kind to one another.

Whether you are Jewish, Christian, Muslim, or of no faith at all, take this opportunity to share your light with the world. It doesn’t take a miracle to do that.

Ethan Felson is the executive director of A Wider Bridge.

Continue Reading

Commentary

Farewell to a Genius: a tribute to Sondheim

The genius of Sondheim is that he used the brilliant flame of his imagination to lead the way into a new world

Published

on

President Barack Obama awards the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Stephen Sondheim Nov. 24, 2015 (White House photo by Pete Souza)

PALM SPRINGS – When I learned of the passing of Stephen Sondheim, I was playing a game.

Like so many of us nowadays, I spend more of my downtime than I care to admit mindlessly distracting myself by manipulating pixels on a handheld screen, so although I wish I could say it was the kind of brain-challenging, devilishly clever game of which of Sondheim himself was famously a fan, it most definitely was not.

Brainless as it may have been, this was what I was doing when the notification banner suddenly popped up. Short and to the point, it was a breaking news alert: “Stephen Sondheim, master craftsman who reinvented the musical, dies aged 91.”

At first, I went through the reflexive mental process of acknowledging that, although I felt a pang of sorrow, there was comfort in knowing he had lived a phenomenally lengthy life of success and accomplishment surely beyond his wildest dreams.

It was true that I loved Stephen Sondheim as much as it was possible to love any human being I had never actually met, but this was an inevitable event for which I had stoically prepared in advance. I couldn’t find it within myself to be sad.

It was shortly thereafter that I realized this was a loss I was going to feel for the rest of my life.

Like many little gay boys of my generation, I grew up being exposed to musical theatre through the old cast albums my parents owned. “My Fair Lady,” “Camelot,” “Cabaret” – the songs from these and so many more classic shows made up a big portion of the soundtrack to my childhood, fanning the flames of a lifelong love that continues to this day.

I was aware of Sondheim at the time – but I wasn’t impressed. Naturally, I loved “West Side Story” – already a movie buff, it was one of my favorite Hollywood classics – but I had no interest for shows like “Company,” “Follies,” or “A Little Night Music,” which were about boring grown-ups going through boring grown-up things and taking it all far too seriously.

It wasn’t until later, when I discovered “Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” as a teen, that I was hooked. Here was all the over-the-top, period-costumed spectacle I adored about musical theatre wrapped up into a deliciously gruesome tale of people being slaughtered and served up as meat pies, and Angela Lansbury was the star. I couldn’t resist it, and as I listened for the first time to its dizzyingly complex songs, I finally “got” Sondheim.

Simultaneously, the old-fashioned favorites from my youth began to lose a little bit of their luster for me. Compared to this darkly beautiful masterpiece, in which somehow even the most reprehensible actions and characters were imbued with a comprehensible humanity, they seemed suddenly quaint and unsophisticated, relics of a world that was quickly fading away.

This was true, of course, for an entire generation. The genius of Sondheim is that he used the brilliant flame of his imagination to lead the way into a new world where musicals didn’t have to be brain candy, where they could make the kind of observations and revelations about the fathomless depths of human experience that had previously been the sole province of the so-called “legitimate” theatre.

But you don’t need me to tell you that: if you’ve read any of the countless obituaries and tributes published in the wake of his passing, you already know it, if you didn’t already.

In writing this tribute, it was suggested I might offer up a “thoroughly LA” take on the life of this icon – and since I normally write mostly about film and television, that certainly is fitting. I could point out that the boundary-pushing genius which helped Sondheim transform the Broadway musical was the very thing that made him a hard sell in Hollywood. His work was inherently theatrical, a delicate balance of razor-sharp reality and high concept conceit, and, to be fair, even the greatest of filmmakers would likely be challenged to capture the right blend on a screen.

“West Side” was a multi-Oscar-winning hit on film, but it was already a cultural sensation by the time it was made, and other early adaptations of his work (“Gypsy,” “A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum,” “A Little Night Music”) failed to make quite as big a splash. Later, high-profile screen versions were made of “Sweeney Todd” and “Into the Woods” – but for devotees, despite their relative financial success, these were pale shadows of the master’s originals. Still, Sondheim made an impact on Hollywood in other ways; most memorably, he won an Oscar for writing “Sooner or Later” for Madonna to sing in “Dick Tracy.” He also contributed songs for movies like Warren Beatty’s “Reds,” and even co-wrote (with longtime friend Anthony Perkins) the twisted screenplay for “The Last of Sheila,” a wickedly inventive comedy-mystery from 1973 that has achieved cult status even outside the Sondheim fanbase.

But really, Sondheim was not of Hollywood, or of LA, or even of New York, though his sensibilities were a considerably better fit there. The truth, the insight, the intelligence, and the boundless curiosity about life that permeated all his works prove that he was beyond belonging to a particular place or time. 

Of course, die-hard Sondheim fans – and trust me, there are more of us than you think – need no proof that his was a universal voice. That’s why we are all so eager to talk about him, to drop quotes from his lyrics into as many conversations possible, and to tell you which Sondheim song is their favorite and why they think it’s the best of all.

And which is mine? I tend to fluctuate, depending on where I am at in my life at the time. It’s often tempting to count the devastating “Ladies Who Lunch,” an existential crisis set to music, at the top of the list. At other times it’s “Finishing the Hat,” a confessional lament about the emotional isolation of being an artist, or “I’m Still Here,” an oft-recorded celebration of show-biz survivors that’s been embraced by other kinds of survivors as well. Like a lot of us who were around in the 80s and 90s, I also feel a deep connection to “No One Is Alone,” the heartfelt ballad of comfort adopted as an anthem during the darkest days of the AIDS crisis.

Yet there’s one song I keep coming back to, over and over. “Someone in a Tree” was composed for “Pacific Overtures,” a show about the opening of Japan to Western commerce in the 19th century. In the song, concealed observers watch a treaty being negotiated behind closed doors, yet they can report no relevant information about what takes place in the meeting because they only see it from their limited viewpoints.

In lesser hands, the situation might be nothing more than fodder for an extended comedy of errors, but for Sondheim it becomes a springboard into a Zen-like meditation – “It’s the ripple, not the sea, that is happening” – about the importance of perspective.  It’s a breathtaking achievement, and at one point in his career the composer himself once cited it as his favorite among all his works. If I had to pick one, it would be mine, too.

That’s because perspective is probably the greatest gift of the many that Sondheim gave me: he opened my eyes to a world of infinite viewpoints, where even the most mundane or ridiculous or horrific or devastating moments can be seen as beautiful, and where every single human experience has meaning, if only you can find the right angle from which to look at it.

********************

John Paul King is the Los Angeles Blade’s Arts & Entertainment editor and featured A&E columnist

Continue Reading

Commentary

Evangelical Christian groups flout the law – again

Christian Right groups promoting anti-LGBT practices in the US and abroad, despite bans, is nothing new: they’ve been doing it for decades

Published

on

Graphic design by Inge Snip via openDemocracy

By Chrissy Stroop | PORTLAND – In recent years, 40% of American states, along with more than 100 municipalities, have begun banning mental health professionals from providing so-called ‘conversion therapy’ to minors (defined in the United States as people under the age of 18).

The American Psychiatric Association, which first expressed its “strong opposition” to this harmful practice in 1998, reiterated its position in 2018 – at a time when anti-LGBTQ sentiments were flaring up amid a general right-wing backlash against democratic norms and civil rights gains. The American Psychological Association has also provided a helpful list of talking points in support of legislative efforts to ban ‘conversion therapy’.

Whether such bans are observed or enforced, however, is another matter.

Targeting minors

A new investigation by openDemocracy has revealed that one of the US’s most prominent anti-LGBTQ organisations, the Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, has continued to promote ‘conversion therapy’ to minors – even in areas where bans are in place. An undercover reporter posing as a 17-year-old “struggling with same-sex attraction” found Focus-affiliated therapists who were willing to “help” her “change” her sexual orientation in Virginia and Colorado, both states that ban ‘conversion therapy’ for minors.

In addition, openDemocracy discovered that Focus on the Family’s list of approved counsellors includes “dozens” of “licensed professionals who offer specific treatment for ‘homosexuality issues’, ‘gender identity issues’ or both” and “have children and adolescents as clients, including in states where ‘conversion therapy’ is banned”.

Practitioners seeking Focus’s imprimatur must have a “state mental health credential”, which means that the group is not only flouting state and local ‘conversion therapy’ bans, but also demanding that licensed therapists flout the established standards of their fields in favour of fundamentalist Christian ideology that treats queerness as “sin”.

Focus on the Family was founded in 1977 by Dr James Dobson, who believed corporal punishment was required of Christian parents, and who was far more influenced by eugenicist thinking than most evangelicals would prefer to admit. He soon established himself as a public figure, first as the conservative Christian disciplinarian answer to the nurturing style of parenting promoted by the likes of Dr Benjamin Spock, and then as a power broker in the increasingly authoritarian Republican Party.

The group has some unpleasant friends. The Family Research Council (FRC) – designated an anti-LGBTQ “hate group” by the Southern Poverty Law Center – was integrated into Focus on the Family in 1988, as its advocacy arm. They officially split into separate organisations again in 1992 (in a move to protect Focus’s tax-exempt status as a religious non-profit), but Dobson remained on the FRC’s board.

Disregard for legal norms

Focus on the Family’s extreme anti-LGBTQ animus is, of course, not unique on the Christian Right – and neither is its disregard for legal norms. For example, Liberty University, a hardline evangelical institution founded by culture warrior extraordinaire Jerry Falwell, Sr., once penalised law students who argued in an exam that an “ex-lesbian” mother should obey court orders requiring parental visiting rights for her ex-wife. The reason the mother – who was, in fact, not so hypothetical – was supposed to engage in “civil disobedience” was to “protect” her child from exposure to “the homosexual lifestyle”.

As documented by an FBI affidavit, the real-life mother behind the exam question had actually kidnapped her child and fled the US for Nicaragua, where she was staying in the beach house of a Christian Right activist. Which leads to the issue of the US Christian Right’s international reach.

Evangelical missionaries have contributed to the rise of reactionary politics in Latin America, and they are also well known for disregarding laws put in place to protect uncontacted Indigenous peoples. So we should not be surprised that – on top of the new revelations about Focus’s disregard for ‘conversion therapy’ bans in the US, openDemocracy has identified mental health practitioners with links to Focus and Exodus Global Alliance (another US Christian conservative group) accused of providing ‘conversion therapy’ in Costa Rica.

Although ‘conversion therapy’ is not yet banned in Costa Rica, it does represent a pernicious export from the US Christian Right, whose influence in Latin America is both longstanding and harmful. Focus’s presence in the region, via its Enfoque a la Familia offices, dates back to 1985.

American evangelicals – white evangelicals, in particular – pursue an ends-justify-the-means approach to their faith

Having grown up in this type of dominionist Christianity, I can’t say I’m surprised by openDemocracy’s findings. At the same time, it is immensely important to document the ways in which American evangelicals – white evangelicals, in particular – pursue an ends-justify-the-means approach to their faith.

They exploit bad-faith ‘religious freedom’ arguments to push a theocratic (and de facto white supremacist) agenda, and evade the law (whether local, national or international) when it doesn’t give them free rein to dominate others. If there’s one thing that should be very clear after the 6 January insurrection against the US government – which was undoubtedly driven by the religious right – it’s that right-wing Christians are willing to give up even a plausible veneer of support for democracy in order to hold on to power.

They will wield that power to harm marginalised people, however and wherever they can, and it is well past time for us to begin holding them accountable.

*********************

A prominent ex-evangelical writer, speaker, and advocate, Chrissy Stroop is (with Lauren O’Neal) coeditor of the essay anthology Empty the Pews: Stories of Leaving the Church. A senior correspondent for Religion Dispatches, her work has appeared in Dame Magazine, Foreign Policy, Playboy, Political Research Associates, and other outlets, including peer-reviewed academic journals.

Holding a Ph.D. in modern Russian history from Stanford University, Stroop is a Senior Research Associate with the University of Innsbruck’s Postsecular Conflicts project. In 2019 Chrissy came out as a transgender woman and began her journey of medical transition. She resides in Portland, Oregon.

*********************

The preceding article was first published at openDemocracy and is republished by permission.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement

Follow Us @LosAngelesBlade

Sign Up for Blade eBlasts

Popular