US Government rules on Gender Identity

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue May 01, 2018 1:19 pm

I'm working and don't have much time but here are a couple more articles about the "art" exhibit.

I absolutely agree that many, perhaps even most TIM's are harmless and non-violent but unfortunately violent incidents abound. Due to a news blackout you are not learning about them. Google Dana Rivers murders for info about the triple murder of two black lesbians and their son by transwoman Dana Rivers, a case I believe is being tried now in the same location (SF) as the exhibit. Why no coverage or outcry about a triple murder of a lesbian family? There are many other examples....


Violent misogyny is unfortunately not confined to the internet’s ‘incels’
Catherine Bennett
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... net-incels

Image

Killers are rare; more commonplace are terrible fantasies of abuse against women

The Guardian
Sun 29 Apr 2018 00.59 EDT

There were, and remain, many compelling reasons not to read My Twisted World, as Elliot Rodger called the apologia he distributed before killing six people, then himself, in 2014. The main one being: let’s not do what he wanted. Women readers, in particular, were scheduled to study his plans to murder as many of them as possible and realise, too late, that it was their fault for not sleeping with him.

But maybe we’ve missed something? In a close reading on a music website, a male reviewer commended it online (before his removal) as “beautifully written”.

Without the internet, in fact, the lengthy document might, like most of its genre, never have gone much beyond clinical circles and the dedicated, spree-killer subset of true crime connoisseurs. As it was, the peer-to-peer connectivity that inspired dreams, among early cyberutopians, of a better world, ensured that the Rodger document would be circulated, rapidly, within the sort of existing misogynistic circles he’d frequented. Here, an international membership feels no need to represent its interest in women killing and torturing as a scholarly pursuit.

On, for instance, Reddit, a website long portrayed by enthusiasts who included Rodger as a marvel of in-house moderation, a sub-group of men identifying as “involuntary celibates” and who idolised Rodger was only closed down last year. Fortunately, given the Toronto mass murderer appears likewise to have worshipped Rodger, Reddit had finally adjusted its policies so as to prohibit content that “encourages, glorifies, incites or calls for violence or physical harm against an individual or group of people”.

Prior to that, content glorifying Rodger, alongside more stereotypical exhortations to violence, was presumably regarded as just the routine, woman-hating banter some men go in for, in private, and quite unlike the terrorist hate speech designed, in less respectable online communities, to conclude in murder.

At any rate, the relevant participants shortly reconvened in less censorious forums. “I want to murder a femoid,” a contributor shares on a notionally moderated site, whose signatories enjoy debating how they’d murder a woman, after drugging and raping her. One fancies this: “Take a surgical knife, cut open her abdominal area and remove the organs while she’s alive.”

Image
A makeshift shrine near the site in Toronto where Alek Minassian killed 10 people by driving his van on to the pavement. Photograph: Geoff Robins/AFP/Getty Images

In the days since the Canadian man murdered 10 people, a good deal of attention, including glossaries of special terms, has focused on the peculiarities of “incel” online behaviour. Here, the standard misogynistic repertoire – “you deserve to be raped”, etc – is ornamented, a bit, with coinages such as femoids. But actually, so what? To many social media users, neither the language nor the sentiments expressed in posts such as the one above, however far along the woman-hating continuum, are likely to look radically out of the ordinary.

Apart from anything, Jack the Ripper, who would now be the toast of angry celibates, had the disembowelling idea 130 years ago. And further demonstrating that misogynistic tropes are by no means the monopoly of resentful male virgins, curators at San Francisco library are currently staging an exhibition featuring a display of dissident-silencing weaponry (axes and bats) and other hate-advertising artefacts.

Photographs of one vitrine, featuring a red bespattered T-shirt reading: “I punch terfs!” (trans-exclusionary radical feminists/women who disagree with me), may have struck a chord with anyone following the current UK debate about the government’s self-ID proposals. To date, threats, from one side, which echo, inescapably, some of those in the pro-Rodger playbook (“die in a fire terf scum”) have yet to generate comparably widespread concern, even after a woman was punched. Her assailant had earlier expressed the wish to “fuck up some terfs”.

For many prominent women, the violence threatened by Rodger fans must sound especially familiar. Caroline Criado-Perez, to whom we owe the new statue of Millicent Fawcett, is just one brilliant woman to have been rewarded, on Twitter, with sexualised menaces (”choke you with my dick” etc), which attracted nowhere near the appalled interest that now surrounds “incels”, as we should surely agree not to call these men, and not only because it implies that involuntary celibacy represents a special condition. It’s often called, for instance, “being single” and is what dating websites were invented for.

To agree to use the lads’ pet terminology, is, moreover, to suggest that something distinguishes them from legions of other threatening men expressing a similar wish to control, punish or just silence women and, critically, in similar language. Such as, to non-compliant sexual targets, “choke on my dick”. A glance at Twitter confirms how generously such abuse has been accommodated, even as the repetitive insults and threats indicate gendered hostility to women in general.

If sexism does not explain how rapidly the language employed against dissenting women (including some trans women) in the UK self-ID debate, degenerated, in some quarters, into generic-sounding obscenities (eg, to unco-operative lesbians, “choke on my ladydick”), perhaps it’s because social media has for so long facilitated the delusion that hate speech, as applied to women, is simply part of the landscape.

The very odiousness of the misogynist language that has become, according (pre-Rodger) to one academic, Emma Alice Jane, “a lingua franca in many sectors of the cybersphere”, may help explain, she argues, why the “ethical and material implications” of this form of hate speech have been so under-studied. Hate speech that persists unchallenged, by both – for their different reasons – reactionaries and progressives, is unlikely, anyway, to be corrected.

Maybe women should skim the Elliot Rodger plan for subjugating their sex, if only to appreciate that, once non-subservient women are expected to live with obscene online threats – and axe exhibitions and punching – at least some elements of his vision have surely been realised.

• Catherine Bennett is an Observer columnist
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby liminalOyster » Tue May 01, 2018 1:23 pm

Heaven Swan » Tue May 01, 2018 12:40 pm wrote:
liminalOyster » Tue May 01, 2018 11:54 am wrote:Im curious based on these replies which seem to take a very controversially positioned blog as fact -- that piece has a number of seeming factual errors and wild jumps in logic -- have people read some accounts of the show from other sources? I found a few straightaway that completely contradict the basic facts presented here.


Please post references.


Well, you are much more vested in this conversation than I and may know quite a bit more about it. That said, the title of that piece seems a very skewed jump from reportage to selective interpretation. The weapons in that art show were first created as a riff on "fag/queer-bashing" and the idea of "bashing back." They were not "designed to kill feminists," even if it may be reasonable to interpret the broader theory and praxis they're enmeshed in as misognyist, etc. Here's "Scout" the founder of The Degenderettes interviewed about the bats:

How long have y’all been around and how did you get started?

A few of us genderqueers were nervous about the backlash of Laverne Cox’s gift of visibility to trans people, and started talking about mutual protection. Late 2014 is when the name “Degenderettes” first went around. The first official members were a handful of feminists who liked to shoot guns together, along with myself and some other highly visible genderqueers who needed to surround ourselves with friends who gave no fucks. The aesthetic got passed around pretty quickly, and we were on a national scope by 2015.

Those baseball bats are pretty rad! Why did you start making them?

It had been a rough year of mounting transphobic harassments for us all. I had already invested in a baseball bat so I could, y’know, feel more like Beyoncé. Then the Pulse shooting happened, and I impulsively bought a dozen more blem bats off eBay to hand out at an upcoming trans march. I was imagining, like, a choreographed color guard routine with bats instead of wooden rifles, to declare we were still alive and not afraid of being visible. We didn’t end up bringing them to that march because we figured the cops would be extra jumpy and try to start a real Compton’s Cafeteria Anniversary Riot, which I worried would endanger the kids and elders marching with us. (One cop did pick a fight with us over a simple “bash back” banner, so it’s probably good we didn’t bring the bats.) A month later some local Degenderettes saw the forgotten bats in my workshop and took them for home defense. A few other members chipped in to buy our broke members bats too, and soon I had a dedicated bat-painting station in my workshop and was selling them over the internet.


Here's some text from where they are sold on the group's site:

originally made for the Degenderettes Color Guard bat-spinning dance troupe — now you can have one too!
we make these from BLEM BATS to keep them cheap, so they may come with queerly shaped pommels and unfinished ends, but they can still hit a baseball right good
lovingly hand-painted by The Degenderettes using fancy-ass GLOSS ENAMEL so they still look beautiful even when they're beat to shit
if you need a bat flag that isn't pictured (especially a 33" of an existing 26" listing), email us at degenderettes@gmail.com


And they're available painted in the flag schemas of all sorts of different LGBTQA[XYZ / Ad Infinitum] motifs.

Here's the statement from their FB page about the removal of the shirt.

The Degenderettes
April 28 at 4:33pm ·
This has been awful. Please hold each other.

Our art show at the SF Public Library has brought so much hope to so many people; it brought us to tears to hear reviews from elders, youth, even children, who’s spirits were uplifted by the exhibit. The SFPL was targeted this week by our enemies and we know how brutal anti-trans trolls are, so please understand that when the SFPL removes a piece or two, it is because they have to. SFPL serves so many functions, from being a formidable institution of learning, to being an access point for immigrants and non-English speakers, to hosting our community’s events, to just being a safe place for our homeless youth to charge their phones. Having the SFPL is more important to the Degenderettes than just getting to exhibit our protest mementos in their halls.

We could hardly care about the T-shirt, but the fallout from the removal of that single piece of artwork has hit our community hard. Our harassers have been emboldened. What was originally a protective act from a non-binary person to their trans women friends is being wielded to polarize our community and demonize the existence of trans women in general. To all of you who are angry on our behalf and have asked how you can help, thank you. Remember who benefits the most from our community’s pain. Focus on helping those of us who are hurting.

Wherever our harassers’ rhetoric has steered the conversation by the time we post this, the damage falls hardest on the people who have to read endless transphobic opinions during their smoke break and, somehow, swallow it up and go back to work. The SFPL will be okay. Even the Degenderettes, as a group, have so much support now that, yes, we’ll be fine too. Please go hold your confused queer elders, your trans men partners, your non-binary coworkers, the butches at the bar - we have all taken hits this week. And please, please please please, check on a trans girl today. Some just need you to buy them lunch and hear you say that you’ve got their back - others need something more: a new job, help with rent, a safe place to retreat. Listen to them, stand by them.

At the end of the day a T-shirt is just a T-shirt, and the Degenderettes purpose - if it can be distilled - is just that we can all live another day.

- Degenderettes, NorCal Chapter


My little bit of research also suggests the individual named in the piece as a "white nationalist" is a loud anti-fascist / antifa sort who previously had some sort of nazi kink which they abandoned because of its interpretation by others. I don't know these people and dont really give a fuck. But jumping to calling someone a nazi who is clearly active in an antifa movement in 2018 is not trust-winning, for me at least.

I have no horse in this race. I'm a pretty much straight cis white male. And I have now been slowly convinced that there is some real misogynist stink to pockets of the emergent trans movement and its discourses. But I also don't think one can present a piece like this as the extreme op-ed it is and expect it to be taken as a meaningful report of events. The only aspect I really care about here is that the blog piece simply rolls over the self-stated opinions and positions of the artists, never even slowing down to refute them. I care alot about art and discussion. Even if the art sucks or wildly offends. I always want to know why and what the artist was thinking. That is my only MO in particaipting here.

My opinion may be wrong, bunk, etc. So please disregard if you like - I don't mean to step on your toes as I assume you posted this because you agree with it. I'm just never crazy about stuff that slants and skews to what I consider such an extreme degree. Cheers
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 01, 2018 1:35 pm

They don't seem to have much of an Internet presence, and other than the above piece (reproduced in various places) the show doesn't seem to have received much coverage at all (based on google search, fwiw), so far. Self-defense training and parties is what they apparently do, plus the merch (colored bats and t-shirts, what's in the show).

Some of the trans propaganda against "TERFs" is indeed very offensive and a case at best of punching sideways. I doubt sincerely that any of the women designated by the slur have ever physically attacked, bullied or otherwise endangered anyone, unlike the literally thousands of cases of homophobic violence by men targeting transgender people among others. And yet a minority of trans activists have made them the most visible target of their rage.

An interview from 2017.
http://www.maskmagazine.com/the-proximi ... enderettes

Website, defining them as an agitprop group.
https://degenderettes.com/

The site is basically a single page for ordering merch and a link to the FB page.
https://www.facebook.com/degenderettes/

SFPL page on the exhibition.
https://sfpl.org/index.php?pg=1032262901

The size and importance of this phenomenon can indeed be exaggerated. Wouldn't surprise me if it's a one-person show. My further annoyance is the self-characterization as "antifa," leaving them one short of a provoke-the-right trifecta.

.
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby American Dream » Tue May 01, 2018 4:33 pm

Julia Serrano is a thoughtful leftist and a respected member of the Movement, which in my experience involves many more non-binary people than acknowledged here and a strong majority who identifies as feminist.


ImageJulia Serano
Jan 30



Thoughts about transphobia, TERFs, and TUMFs

Image

For many decades now, transgender communities have used the term “transphobic” as a catch-all adjective to describe language, actions, attitudes, and/or people that delegitimize or disparage us. The word certainly serves an important purpose, as it allows us to identify the many things out there that undermine or injure us. But much like other analogous terms (e.g., misogynistic, racist, homophobic, etc.), it seems to create a one-size-fits-all category that includes everything from inadvertent and relatively minor infractions, to intentional and serious attempts to dehumanize and disappear us. From a trans perspective, such a category makes some sense, as we are hurt by all of these things, whether big or small, purposeful or unintentional. But there are contexts in which such differences may be quite relevant — e.g., when considering what the appropriate activist response to a specific instance of transphobia should be.

Upon considering this, as I was writing the essay Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation: A Guide for Understanding Transgender Children Debates, I used three different terms to differentiate between underlying sentiments or motives that often drive expressions of transphobia. I have found them useful on subsequent occasions, so I recently added these terms to my online trans, gender, sexuality, & activism glossary. That new entry reads as follows:

Trans-antagonistic, Trans-suspicious, Trans-unaware: terms I have increasingly used since the mid-’10s (e.g., see here) to make distinctions between various types of anti-transgender attitudes or positions. Some expressions of transphobia stem from people simply being “trans-unaware” — i.e., uninformed (or under-informed) about transgender people and experiences. Other individuals may be downright “trans-antagonistic,” in that they are fundamentally opposed to transgender people for specific moral, political, and/or theoretical reasons. From an activist standpoint, this distinction is quite pertinent: Trans-unaware individuals tend to be “passively transphobic” (e.g., only expressing such attitudes when they come across a trans person, or when the subject is raised), and may be open to relinquishing those attitudes upon learning more about transgender lives and issues. In contrast, trans-antagonistic individuals often actively promote anti-trans agendas (e.g., policies, laws, misinformation campaigns) and are highly unlikely to be moved by outreach or education (unless, of course, they undergo a more comprehensive philosophical transformation). The “trans-suspicious” position acknowledges that transgender people exist and should be tolerated (to some degree), but routinely questions (and sometimes actively works to undermine) transgender perspectives and politics. For example, a trans-suspicious individual might treat me respectfully and refrain from misgendering me, yet simultaneously express doubt about whether certain other people are “really trans” or should be allowed to transition. While they often consider themselves to be “pro-trans” (on the basis that they tolerate us to some degree), their strong cisnormative and cissexist biases lead them to spread much of the same misinformation, and push for many of the same anti-trans policies, as their trans-antagonistic counterparts (e.g., see here). In a world where trans-antagonistic and trans-unaware attitudes are pervasive, trans-suspicious arguments tend to strike the average cisgender person as relatively “objective” or “reasonable” by comparison (although trans people readily see through this veneer).

The distinction between the trans-antagonistic and trans-suspicious positions was central to my “Detransition, Desistance, and Disinformation” essay, as I was attempting to articulate (to a largely trans-unaware audience) why trans-suspicious views from the likes of Jesse Singal and Alice Dreger (both discussed in that essay) are so invalidating from a trans perspective. While these writers tolerate trans people to some extent (e.g., they are not calling for us to be entirely excluded from society), they clearly value cisgender identities, bodies, and perspectives over transgender ones, and they are inherently suspicious of anything transgender people say about our own lives (unless, of course, it aligns with their cisnormative presumptions). Hence, they push for many of the same policies (e.g., pro-gender-reparative therapies and anti-gender-affirming approaches to healthcare) and spread much of the same misinformation (e.g., psychological theories that have been rejected by most trans health professionals) as their trans-antagonistic counterparts, despite the fact that they seem relatively benign to outsiders.

While I did not address it in that essay, I believe that considering the distinction between trans-antagonistic and trans-unaware transphobia can also be fruitful. On the surface, these occurrences may resemble one another — they both might involve individuals misgendering me, or using certain slurs, or suggesting that I’m not a “real woman.” All of these acts may feel equally invalidating to me. But from an activist perspective, it matters whether these individuals might possibly change their ways (e.g., upon learning more about transgender people and perspectives), or whether they subscribe to some overarching ideology (e.g., religious fundamentalism, TERF) that precludes transgender people and perspectives, and thus are unlikely to ever change their ways (unless they first reject the ideology in question).


More: https://medium.com/@juliaserano/thought ... 7a18c1a225
American Dream
 
Posts: 19946
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2007 4:56 pm
Location: Planet Earth
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue May 01, 2018 6:01 pm

^^ Above article is word salad AD.

The former moderator asked you to stay out of this thread and I'd like to ask you to respect that.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby JackRiddler » Tue May 01, 2018 8:47 pm

I define gender as a kind of conditioning, largely oppression or brainwashing, that actually varies greatly by culture and subculture. Oh yes, many, many, many people are "gender binary" if you will, or rather do not fit and are uncomfortable with their culturally assigned gender profile based on their biological sex. Possibly a majority. They get sanctioned and ostracized and diagonosed and medicated and bullied and beaten for not conforming, or not being able to conform. It's a societal wrong and it demands many very real victims. But the number who have turned the women they call "TERFs" into some kind of dangerous demon-spawn are a vanishing minority. Some have commandeered a few relative high grounds of the cultural propaganda machinery. I don't want to exaggerate their influence and power at all. To get attention, a few resort to stunts like those advertised (I think that's the right word, actually) by the Degenderettes. In the SFPL exhibit I see yet another one of 14 million troll moves in the present attention ecology. It's true that such stunts mimic or ape misogynistic violence, but they also help to distract from the source of 99% of it (which is not from transgender people).
We meet at the borders of our being, we dream something of each others reality. - Harvey of R.I.

To Justice my maker from on high did incline:
I am by virtue of its might divine,
The highest Wisdom and the first Love.

TopSecret WallSt. Iraq & more
User avatar
JackRiddler
 
Posts: 15986
Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 2:59 pm
Location: New York City
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Tue May 01, 2018 9:47 pm

Thanks Jack for your thoughtful contributions and thanks to everyone who showed common snse and compassion by being shocked and outraged at this ghastly display of violent misogyny.


Important to remember—that there is not one single case of a woman killing a trans woman, it is men that murder them. Yet, transwomen routinely threaten to rape and kill women that protest allowing transwomen into our private spaces based on them being biologically and physically male. (If you would like to see proof of this, please visit terfisaslur.com. These threats are well documented and there are a lot of them).

This art exhibit is nothing more than a bunch of weapons that are being displayed as intimidation at women for refusing to acknowledge biological males as women and refusing to quietly allow them into our private spaces, onto our sports teams, etc.

In our country, 3 women are murdered every single day by males closest to them. Men routinely target women for violence because we don’t behave in the way that they want us to, like Elliott Rodgers, and most recently, Alek Minassian.

This art exhibit is nothing more than men threatening women who refuse to bow to their demands. It is almost unbelievable that a group of men are being permitted to display axes and baseball bats in a library as weapons to be used against women that have never threatened or attacked them.

It is not violence or threat of violence to transwomen that makes women want to distance ourselves from transwomen. Take a look around your library. Those t-shirts with our fake blood on them, the bats and the axes. THAT is why women want to keep our spaces private to only women.

A bunch of weapons displayed by men for use on disobedient women is offensive.

(Edited Excerpt from a letter to the library director)
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Sounder » Wed May 02, 2018 3:16 am

It is odd for a loud segment of one group of folk that struggle against gender stereotyping, to choose as their main target another group that struggles against gender stereotyping.

It's odd that the intent of the bats, t-shirts and gear is used to threaten women rather than the men that do the actual harm to trans folk.

This loud mouth element of the trans community are acting very much like men, so why pray tell should women bring them into their groups?



I love to hear from AD, when he uses his own voice. Not so much when he is acting as a ventriloquists dummy.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Blue » Wed May 02, 2018 8:20 am

Thank you for your posts on this topic Heaven Swan. I wasn't really paying attention to this blip of a sub-sub-culture until I saw that exhibit and the people defending it. Women as punching bags for sport, same as it ever was. Just this time it's fake women doing the damage.

It's not a matter of this simply being attention seeking trolls being offensive (in a public library in one of America's largest cities). Imagine if the exhibit t-shirt said "I punch niggers" or "I punch spics." Would it still be considered art? I think not. And for them to claim it lifts the spirits of children? W.T.F.

Bad enough men continue to beat, rape, kill and oppress the other half of the world's population as "men" but now they want to do those things as "women." Their claimed victimhood at the hands of women is based on them not being able to control this absurd situation. I'm a woman now and you better fuckin let me be the leader of your fuckin group and treat me like a woman or I'm gonna beat you with a baseball bat!

Heaven Swan » Tue May 01, 2018 7:47 pm wrote:Thanks Jack for your thoughtful contributions and thanks to everyone who showed common snse and compassion by being shocked and outraged at this ghastly display of violent misogyny.


Important to remember—that there is not one single case of a woman killing a trans woman, it is men that murder them. Yet, transwomen routinely threaten to rape and kill women that protest allowing transwomen into our private spaces based on them being biologically and physically male. (If you would like to see proof of this, please visit terfisaslur.com. These threats are well documented and there are a lot of them).

This art exhibit is nothing more than a bunch of weapons that are being displayed as intimidation at women for refusing to acknowledge biological males as women and refusing to quietly allow them into our private spaces, onto our sports teams, etc.

In our country, 3 women are murdered every single day by males closest to them. Men routinely target women for violence because we don’t behave in the way that they want us to, like Elliott Rodgers, and most recently, Alek Minassian.

This art exhibit is nothing more than men threatening women who refuse to bow to their demands. It is almost unbelievable that a group of men are being permitted to display axes and baseball bats in a library as weapons to be used against women that have never threatened or attacked them.

It is not violence or threat of violence to transwomen that makes women want to distance ourselves from transwomen. Take a look around your library. Those t-shirts with our fake blood on them, the bats and the axes. THAT is why women want to keep our spaces private to only women.

A bunch of weapons displayed by men for use on disobedient women is offensive.

(Edited Excerpt from a letter to the library director)
User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Wed May 02, 2018 9:15 pm

Blue's a good name for you because you "blue" the "left-wing" crypto-misogynists here out of the water with your kick ass comment. Ha.

I don't know if you're male or female but if you're male your comment is an example of what has to happen before anything is really going to change. Thanks to Metoo# the wall of silence is beginning to crumble. We're kicking at the wall and a few pink bat-wielding storm trooper wannabes won't stop us. Of that you can be sure.

But when enough men throw off the fossilized shell of misogyny encasing them and and break rank with the bro code of collusion against women-- that's when the rotten and deeply sick edifice of patriarchy tumbles down....and clears the way for a fresh new world where love can abound.

(Poetry inspired by Identity's fine attempt in the Buddhism thread)..




Blue » Wed May 02, 2018 8:20 am wrote:Thank you for your posts on this topic Heaven Swan. I wasn't really paying attention to this blip of a sub-sub-culture until I saw that exhibit and the people defending it. Women as punching bags for sport, same as it ever was. Just this time it's fake women doing the damage.

It's not a matter of this simply being attention seeking trolls being offensive (in a public library in one of America's largest cities). Imagine if the exhibit t-shirt said "I punch niggers" or "I punch spics." Would it still be considered art? I think not. And for them to claim it lifts the spirits of children? W.T.F.

Bad enough men continue to beat, rape, kill and oppress the other half of the world's population as "men" but now they want to do those things as "women." Their claimed victimhood at the hands of women is based on them not being able to control this absurd situation. I'm a woman now and you better fuckin let me be the leader of your fuckin group and treat me like a woman or I'm gonna beat you with a baseball bat!
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Blue » Thu May 03, 2018 7:07 pm

Heaven Swan » Wed May 02, 2018 7:15 pm wrote:Blue's a good name for you because you "blue" the "left-wing" crypto-misogynists here out of the water with your kick ass comment. Ha.

Thanks, I guess. There's so much obfuscation around so many issues today and this one more so. People should be able to freely pursue their own path in life but not by means of violence against other people. Simple, really.

Men of all stripes really hate women and it just keeps getting worse.

On edit: I went back to the first page (2016) and found this:

HUD fully expects violence, (which it calls “physical harassment”) to occur between homeless women and the males placed in female sleeping and bathing areas as a result of this ruling:

“If some occupants initially present concerns about transgender or gender nonconforming occupants to project staff and managers, staff should treat those concerns as opportunities to educate and refocus the occupants. HUD recognizes that, even then, conflicts may persist and complaints may escalate to verbal or physical harassment. In these situations, providers should have policies and procedures in place to support residents and staff in addressing and resolving conflicts that escalate to harassment.”[p17]

Strangely, although statistics show that female stranger violence against males is an infinitesimal probability compared to the reverse, the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development is, yet again, solely concerned with the former- the issue of women’s protection from male violence being “beyond the scope” of the Obama administration’s mandate to eliminate sex-based protections for women.

User avatar
Blue
 
Posts: 725
Joined: Fri Nov 13, 2009 1:39 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Mon May 07, 2018 5:23 am

JackRiddler » Tue May 01, 2018 8:47 pm wrote:I define gender as a kind of conditioning, largely oppression or brainwashing, that actually varies greatly by culture and subculture. Oh yes, many, many, many people are "gender binary" if you will, or rather do not fit and are uncomfortable with their culturally assigned gender profile based on their biological sex. Possibly a majority. They get sanctioned and ostracized and diagonosed and medicated and bullied and beaten for not conforming, or not being able to conform. It's a societal wrong and it demands many very real victims. But the number who have turned the women they call "TERFs" into some kind of dangerous demon-spawn are a vanishing minority. Some have commandeered a few relative high grounds of the cultural propaganda machinery. I don't want to exaggerate their influence and power at all. To get attention, a few resort to stunts like those advertised (I think that's the right word, actually) by the Degenderettes. In the SFPL exhibit I see yet another one of 14 million troll moves in the present attention ecology. It's true that such stunts mimic or ape misogynistic violence, but they also help to distract from the source of 99% of it (which is not from transgender people).


I would hope that the persecutors of so-called Terfs are a vanishing minority but I'm not seeing evidence of that, especially in places like Canada where the left has a firm grip on the culture and on power. And in England women who dare to tweet gender-critical political opinions have been visited by the police and questioned about their "tweet transgressions."

See below for a post by an indigenous woman about no-platforming in Canada and a video interview with Posie Parker of London who was visited by the police about her "dangerous" tweets.
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Mon May 07, 2018 5:28 am

An open letter to the left regarding silence

The smearing, harassment, no-platforming, and silencing of women who express feminist opinions about gender and prostitution is unacceptable.


http://www.feministcurrent.com/2018/05/ ... g-silence/

Image
Cherry Smiley

I can’t remember the exact words, who said it or when, but the general message was: courage isn’t the lack of fear, but doing something even when you’re afraid. I am writing this with lots of fear about a backlash that will almost certainly happen. However, I’ve reached the point where I can’t stay silent any longer and need to muster whatever courage I can and do what I think is right, regardless of the cost.

This past week, a woman I’m proud to call a sister ally, Yuly Chan, was no-platformed by a small group of individuals who appointed themselves judge and jury of acceptable ideas and speech. They claimed Chan was a violent, hateful woman whose political opinions were too dangerous to be shared in a public venue and demanded she be removed from a panel scheduled as part of this weekend’s Vancouver Crossroads conference. Chan had been invited by conference organizers, the Vancouver District and Labour Council (VLDC), the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), and Organize BC, to speak on behalf of her group, the Chinatown Action Group. The Chinatown Action Group organizes to improve the lives of low-income residents of Vancouver’s Chinatown, many of whom are seniors. She was to speak to the incredibly important work of this group at the conference.

A recently-formed group called the Coalition Against Trans Antagonism (CATA) wrote a letter to the organizers, then an open letter that included a link to a website CATA had built, documenting supposed evidence of Chan as a threat to public safety. Although Chan was not speaking on the panel about debates around gender or prostitution, Organize BC members interrogated Chan about her politics regarding these issues and eventually refused to move ahead with the panel unless she was removed. Instead of condemning the unethical tactics and behaviour of CATA, intended to silence Chan and smear her as a hate-filled oppressor, the organizers cancelled the entire panel, sending a message that the organizers and their supporters were not willing to take a stand to ensure the needs of low-income Chinese residents were heard. As a result, the Chinatown Action Group was no-platformed right along with their representative.

CATA also demanded that the conference organizers issue a public apology for daring to invite Chan to speak about the activism of low-income Chinese residents of Vancouver. They also demanded that a policy be instituted with the guidance and approval of only “trans women and sex workers,” banning anyone “who promote[s] any form of oppressive, supremacist, and fascist ideology from being offered and/or provided a platform at any of VDLC, CUPE, and Organize BC’s future events.” But who decides which ideologies are “oppressive, supremacist, and fascist”? And why, in activist and academic circles, has it become common and acceptable to engage in witch hunts to rid “the community” (that is made up of whom?) of particular political positions that are grounded not in hate or violence, but in a radical feminist analysis (radical meaning “the root”)? Chan, and so many others who question and critique systems of power are being persecuted for having these feminist or critical politics. It is not violent oppressors, supremacists, or fascists that are being silenced and no-platformed in this case and others like it, it is feminists. There are limits, of course, to the idea of “free speech,” but what I am addressing is specifically discourse among activists and academics on the left.

Organize BC privately and publicly apologized to CATA for inviting Yuly Chan to speak on the panel. But I will not apologize for standing next to Chan and the Chinatown Action Group, and next to all people who have been no-platformed, threatened, intimidated, bullied, and even beaten for their political opinions.

What was Chan’s crime? Having a political analysis and sharing it. She is accused of promoting “SWERF/TERF” ideology. “SWERF” stands for “sex worker exclusionary radical feminist,” and “TERF” stands for “trans exclusionary radical feminist.” These terms are used as insults against women with a radical feminist or class analysis of prostitution and gender. “SWERFs” and “TERFs” are accused of hating, oppressing, harming, and sometimes even killing trans women and sex workers, despite the fact no feminist engages in these practices.

I am of the political opinion that prostitution is a form of male violence that should be abolished. I am also of the political opinion that gender is a social construct and hierarchy that traps and harms women and should also be abolished. Today, these two sentences are enough to mark me as a violent, hate-filled, supremacist/fascist, and have the ability to destroy my reputation, livelihood, and potential academic or employment opportunities now and in the future. I have already been passed over for some opportunities due to my political analysis of prostitution, asked to leave conferences, told I’m not allowed to speak about prostitution when invited to speak about Indigenous research, and threatened with police involvement. I have been intimidated and harassed due only to my politics, not my behaviour. These are only some examples of some of the backlash that I, and other women, have experienced for speaking our opinions. This backlash, however, doesn’t just include no-platforming, but also threats and acts of violence. To many, this may sound unbelievable, as though I am exaggerating. I wish this were the case. I wish I were exaggerating. Unfortunately, this is the reality of activist and academic circles in Canada and elsewhere.

Speaking of academia, in 2016 I was publicly accused online of being an oppressive “SWERF” and “TERF” by a former employee of the Centre for Gender Advocacy at Concordia University, where I am a student. This is the first time I am speaking publicly about this incident, as I have been too afraid to do so since it happened. Although this individual is no longer employed by the Centre for Gender Advocacy, going on instead to become the president of the Fédération des femmes du Québec (FFQ), this issue has not been resolved. In the public post, I was accused of oppressing sex workers and being “transphobic,” funders and the university were tagged, a quote was attributed to me that I never said, and individuals went on a hunt to dig up evidence of my supposed bigotry. One person attempted to publicly engage in discussion about these allegations against me, which I’m grateful for, but they were not heard. Some faculty members were concerned that a staff person at a student support organization was making these types of public allegations about a student and alerted some in positions of power at the University, but got little, if any, response. The manager of the Centre for Gender Advocacy was made aware of the situation, and I am not aware of anything that was or is being done to resolve and rectify the situation. No one has reached out to me to apologize for the online bullying I had experienced, or to speak about concerns or questions they had about my politics, leading me to believe this type of hostility is directed at me not only by one staff member, but the Centre for Gender Advocacy as an organization. I explored different options myself, but was unable to find a way to formally hold the individual and Centre to account. I attempted to find support at the University, but those I approached refused to speak out against the behaviour of the individual and the Centre.

Regardless of your politics, this behaviour is unacceptable. It is not ok to tell lies about people or subject them to political persecution over disagreements. It’s important to note that the Centre houses Missing Justice, an Indigenous solidarity group that hosts the march for murdered and disappeared Indigenous women and girls every year in Montreal. As an Indigenous woman who works on these issues, I was already alienated from Missing Justice when, a number of years ago, non-Indigenous organizers told me to stop speaking and attempted to literally grab a megaphone out of my hand when I was invited to make a statement at their gathering by another Indigenous speaker. My crime was a decolonizing and feminist critical analysis of prostitution and speaking out against men buying sexual access to Indigenous women and girls. In other words, my crime was having a political opinion that differed from the organizers. Rather than attempting to silence an Indigenous woman at an event supposedly held for Indigenous women, a better way forward would have been to publicly acknowledge at the event that my statement does not reflect the organizer’s politics and to encourage those in attendance to learn more about the issue.

Although this incident happened many years ago and the online bullying at Concordia happened two years ago, it continues to severely impact my life as a student in different ways. The message I received from the inaction by the University and the Centre for Gender Advocacy is that it is entirely acceptable to attempt to silence those who are critical of prostitution. I still hear this message today. I feel fear about publicizing these experiences. The very fact that I feel intensely afraid to speak about my own experiences speaks volumes about the climate of activism and academia today.

These incidents are bigger than Yuly Chan and bigger than myself. They have and continue to happen against women with a radical feminist analysis of prostitution and gender. Campaigns are launched against us to silence us, destroy our reputations, paint us as violent, hateful, and oppressive fascists. A 61-year-old woman was even physically assaulted by a young trans-identified male for daring to show up to attend a panel discussing gender and legislation in England.

Regardless of your perspective on prostitution or gender, you have a right to be heard. This means that I may not agree with you and I may challenge your ideas, and you may not agree with me and challenge my ideas, but you have a right to your political analysis and to share that publicly, as do I. Threatening women (for example, tweeting that “TERFS” should be raped or killed), destroying women’s reputations, and compromising women’s incomes is completely unacceptable behaviour. This is not how we build and maintain relationships. Relationships with political allies are incredibly important, but so too are the relationships between political adversaries. These relationships are much more difficult and challenging to navigate, but maintaining good relations means being respectful even to those we may disagree with or dislike. Being respectful can mean you passionately disagree, that you challenge ideas and behaviour — even that you express frustration or anger — but always recognizing the humanity of the person you disagree with. “SWERF” and “TERF” are made up categories of women — they are not accurate descriptors of anyone’s politics, certainly not the politics of feminists. These terms take away the ability of women to name ourselves and describe our own political positions – a situation all too familiar for Indigenous women.

Disagreement is not violence, and I worry about the impacts of the term “violence” being redefined to mean almost anything, rendering it meaningless. Causing offense is not the same as committing violence. Words that question or critique political positions are not violence. Words can call for violence, yes, but being critical of prostitution and gender is not calling for any type of violence. Rather, this is a legitimate critical analysis of systems that impact us all. Words and images can contribute to a culture that devalues some, and for many reasons, encourage, normalize, or passively accept acts of violence, but to say that making a statement others find offensive or that challenges their political analysis equates to literal violence right then and there is inaccurate, and is a means to silence those of us who hold critical feminist opinions. This new definition of “violence” also impacts women who do experience male violence, such as rape, physical assault, murder, or emotional abuse, to name just a few examples.

The name of the conference, “Crossroads,” speaks to our current culture, which silences women deemed dangerous. We are at a crossroads: we can choose to open up dialogue and encourage respectful disagreement and really work to hear from as many as we can who are impacted by an issue — even if the political position is unpopular — or we can choose to let only a few individuals decide that radical political opinions are dangerous, and allow them to dictate the terms of their and other people’s public engagement with those ideas; then silence, threaten, intimidate, and attempt to harm anyone who does not agree with their politics.

Doing nothing is no longer an option — staying silent only gives more power to those who wish to silence women with politics that differ from their own.

I stand with Yuly Chan, the Chinatown Action Group, and all women who have dared to speak up and share their critical perspectives on prostitution and gender. I’m proud to be considered a dangerous woman, as I try to be as dangerous to the patriarchy as possible. As women, we are trained to tolerate, accept, and accommodate patriarchy, racism, capitalism, and colonization.

Too often, activists and academics who claim to be working for justice choose to side with individuals who use bully tactics to shut women that they don’t agree with up. There is nothing new or progressive or inclusive or diverse about telling feminist women to shut up. A strategy grounded in recognizing another’s humanity would include engaging, debating, and disagreeing passionately and respectfully at public events or holding an event to highlight one’s own particular political analysis and engaging in public discussion and advocacy around the issue at hand. Silencing women considered dangerous for having thoughts and sharing them is not how we treat each other when we recognize each other as equals.

I encourage all dangerous women and allies to speak out against the no-platforming and assault on women who express radical feminist opinions or critical ideas about prostitution and gender.

Update 05/06/2018: I want to express my gratitude to those who support a woman’s right to speak and to disagree, but I also want to express my gratitude to the women who have spoken out before me and to those who support me and the right to academic freedom at Concordia and in academia and activist circles generally.

Cherry Smiley is a Nlaka’pamux and Diné feminist who refuses to be silent
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby Heaven Swan » Mon May 07, 2018 5:34 am

Posie Parker interviewed by Magdalen Berns

A chat with Posie Parker on free speech, feminism and Mermaids UK
April 27, 2018




https://gendertrender.wordpress.com/

Posie Parker:

YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/PosieParker

Twitter: https://twitter.com/ThePosieParker

Website: http://theposieparker.com

Magdalen Berns:

Paypal: https://www.paypal.me/MagdalenBerns

Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/Magdalen

Twitter: https://twitter.com/MagdalenBerns

Minds: https://www.minds.com/magdalenberns

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/MagdalenBerns

Instagram: https://instagram.com/magdalenberns
"When IT reigns, I’m poor.” Mario
User avatar
Heaven Swan
 
Posts: 634
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2014 7:22 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: US Government rules on Gender Identity

Postby liminalOyster » Sat May 12, 2018 11:26 am


"Lines Got Blurred": Jeffrey Tambor and an Up-Close Look at Harassment Claims on 'Transparent'
by Seth Abramovitch May 07, 2018, 6:30am PDT

In his first interview since facing accusations of inappropriate behavior on set, the veteran actor — now back onscreen in 'Arrested Development' — opens up about what he did ("I was mean, I was difficult") and what he claims he didn't do ("the other stuff, absolutely not") in one of the most complex cases of the #MeToo era.

The 10:15 to Katonah arrives from Grand Central Terminal precisely on schedule at 12:03 p.m. Standing across from the train platform on a chilly Monday in April is Jeffrey Tambor, the 73-year-old veteran actor best known for a trio of roles on groundbreaking series: The Larry Sanders Show, Arrested Development and, most recently, the critically adored and zeitgeisty family dramedy Transparent. It’s in this picturesque suburban hamlet just 47 miles north of the chaos of midtown Manhattan that Tambor and his wife, Kasia, 49, raise their four children who range in age from 8 to 13. And since being fired three months ago from Transparent, it’s here where Tambor has been exiled in what will surely go down as the darkest chapter of his four-decade career.

Moments later, he is in a coffee shop on the town’s main street. “I love diners,” says Tambor, freshly shaven and neatly dressed in a pinstriped shirt and a zippered navy pullover. “I used to live on 100th and Second Avenue, on the Upper East Side. And I practically lived at a diner.”

The conversation continues like this for a few minutes, a stiff exchange of pleasantries, during which Tambor twists a plastic straw, shredding its paper sleeve. He pauses. “I have to tell you something,” he says, his fingers trembling. It’s obvious before he says it: He’s nervous. “This is the first time I’ve talked about this, ever,” he says. “And possibly the last time. I used to teach acting, you know, and I’d always say, ‘Announce where you are.’ So this is me doing that.”

Where Tambor is right now is uncharted territory. He is about to become the first high-profile subject of the sweeping #MeToo movement to sit for an in-depth interview about his alleged sexual harassment scandal. His is a dizzying tale entangled in Rashomon-like perspectives and political trip wires. And at the center of it all stand three figures: Tambor and his two accusers, Van Barnes, Tambor’s former assistant, and Trace Lysette, an actress on the series.

That Barnes and Lysette are both transgender women is not insignificant. After all, Transparent — led by Tambor’s twice Emmy-winning performance as Maura Pfefferman — was only recently being held up as a beacon of social progressivism, lauded by activist groups like GLAAD for igniting a global transgender movement. In the blink of an eye, however, all that has changed, as Tambor — who admits to having lifelong anger issues but denies sexually harassing his accusers — watched his image go from that of LGBTQ folk hero to fugitive.

Tambor learned that he’d been fired in a text message from Jill Soloway on Feb. 15. That was the day Amazon — still reeling from the exit four months earlier of its top content executive, Roy Price, over sexual harassment claims — announced it would not be renewing Tambor’s option after an internal investigation. Soloway, the show’s 52-year-old creator and showrunner — whose father’s transition inspired the story — followed up that text with a phone call a few minutes later. Tambor was at his local gym at the time, sweating on a recumbent stationary bicycle. “I don’t remember the whole conversation,” he says. “But I do remember her last words were: ‘Do you need help with a statement?’” He went into shock: “If you can picture a man outside a gym for forever, in his workout shorts and everything, just staring.” Tambor had been preparing himself for “a slap on the wrist” for what he says were his temperamental outbursts on the set. Never did he think his biggest career triumph would end in such unceremonious disgrace.

The path to the firing began four months earlier, when, inspired by the #MeToo declarations she was seeing on social media, Barnes — a gregarious, 43-year-old blonde who relocated from rural Missouri to Los Angeles for the opportunity of working for Tambor — typed her own #MeToo account on her personal Facebook page. “Oh hell yeah! ME TOO!” Barnes wrote on Oct. 16, 2017. “[I was] even told [by Tambor] that ‘for that kind’a money and after all that time of working for him that I should be sleeping with him if I want a Hollywood-industry-appropriate pay grade.’”

The post, which never mentions Tambor by name, referred to an employer who gave her “butt pats,” made “‘why aren’t I taking care of him sexually’ comments” and subjected her to “listening to his porno.” Wrote Barnes: “I was depressed and thought about suicide when I left that job.” The post rapidly circulated among the transgender community and beyond. On Nov. 8, 2017, Amazon Studios confirmed that an investigation into Barnes’ claims was in its “early stages.” Tambor released a statement that day dismissing Barnes as a “former disgruntled assistant ... I am appalled and distressed at this baseless allegation.”

One person who read Barnes’ post with interest was Lysette. A striking brunette with fair skin and aquamarine eyes, Lysette, who prefers not to disclose her age, grew up in Dayton, Ohio — she choreographed a dance routine for her high school cheerleading squad — then moved to New York City, where she began transitioning to female. She later found work at a Manhattan strip club, where she never let on to the clientele that she was transgender. After a bad breakup led to a suicide attempt — she slit her wrists on a side street walking home from the strip club one night — Lysette was admitted to Bellevue Hospital’s psychiatric ward. After her release, inspired by the success of the transgender actress Laverne Cox on Orange Is the New Black, she continued to pursue her acting dreams. By 2013, she was flying to Los Angeles to audition for the role of Davina on Transparent, a trans woman who takes Maura under her wing. “We met with many, many trans actresses and writers in our outreach,” says Soloway of that early hiring sweep. (Since creating Transparent, Soloway has started self-identifying as “gender non-binary”; the pronoun “they” is preferred instead of “she.”) The part ended up going to another actress, Alexandra Billings, but Lysette impressed Soloway enough to have her own character written into the show — a yoga teacher and stripper named Shea.

According to Lysette, then a Hollywood neophyte, the unsolicited advances from Tambor started early on. “They began as flirtation — kisses on the forehead, which was awkward,” she tells THR. “But part of me was like, ‘OK, maybe he just thinks of me as a daughter figure or something.’" Lysette says the unwanted affection spilled onto red carpets. “I would kiss him on the cheek and it would land on my lips,” she recalls.

It wasn’t until the filming of the third episode of season two, “New World Coming,” that Lysette felt Tambor had crossed a clear line. While shooting a breakfast scene in skimpy pajamas, Lysette says she was told by Tambor, “My God, Trace, I want to attack you sexually.” (Billings, who was also in the scene, confirms her account to THR). Recalls Lysette, “We were like, ‘What? Who says that?’” A few minutes later, she says, Tambor “waddled over to me in his pajamas and put his feet on top of mine, and started these little, like, thrusts on my hip. They were discreet and insidious and creepy. I felt his genitals on me. And I pushed him off.”

On Nov. 16, Lysette detailed that incident in a statement to THR. “Given the circumstances of my life,” she wrote, “I was used to being treated as a sexual object by men — this one just happened to be famous.” She went on to express her hope that Amazon would “find good in this, and use this as an opportunity to re-center the other trans characters in this show. Don’t let the trans community suffer for the actions of one cis male actor. Remove the problem and let the show go on.”

That Tambor is cisgender, or identifies as his birth sex, was a sticking point for many in the trans community from the start. At a season one screening at the Directors Guild of America, an audience member said Tambor’s performance was “like watching blackface” and that he should be replaced by a trans actress. The suggestion mortified Tambor, literally. “I just made like a possum and played dead,” he recalls. “I remember turning to my right and Jill was in tears.” As the show grew in popularity and acclaim, so did the “elephant in the room,” as Tambor puts it. “Because the revolution got bigger. So the very thing we were doing, the awakening to this movement, made the disparity [of my non-transness] more apparent.”

After Lysette’s claims went public, Tambor convened an emergency meeting with his wife, Poland-born actress Kasia Ostlun, and his reps, including Gersh’s Leslie Siebert, his agent of 30 years. “My advice to him was be truthful,” Siebert recalls. “Tell people your understanding and your truth. That’s all you can do.”

They crafted a second statement, this one taking on a measure of culpability. “I find myself accused of behavior that any civilized person would condemn unreservedly,” it read. “I know I haven’t always been the easiest person to work with. I can be volatile and ill-tempered, and too often I express my opinions harshly and without tact. But I have never been a predator — ever.”

The following day, Tambor received an email from Faith Soloway, 54, Jill’s older sister and a writing producer on Transparent. “I can quote it verbatim because I’ve looked at it for five months,” Tambor insists. He would not show the email to THR, but a source confirms its content. “It said, ‘We are in a coup. You are fucking fantastic. You have changed the world. We have changed the world. We will get through this. Love, love, love, Faith.'”

Faith Soloway confirms having sent the email. "Things were happening so quickly, with people being accused and held accountable by the #MeToo movement," she says. "In the moment I felt that Jill and Jeffrey were under attack. I knew that some people disapproved of Jeffrey, a cisgender actor, playing Maura and I was upset that Jill, as the show's creator, hadn't had the opportunity to address the issue privately [before it went public]. As the story broke, I also sent messages of support to Trace and Van, and after the allegations were presented, I never disbelieved them. I still, hope everyone can learn and heal from this.”

The message sent a “shock wave” through him because it led him to believe that “something was up, over and above me. Some dots were not connecting.” Suspecting he was being set up to be ousted because he is cisgender, Tambor released a third, more pointed statement on Nov. 19. “What has become clear over the past weeks,” he wrote, “is that this is no longer the job I signed up for four years ago ... Given the politicized atmosphere that seems to have afflicted our set, I don’t see how I can return to Transparent.”

Despite having been widely interpreted as such, the statement was never meant to be a definitive resignation letter, Tambor maintains, adding he “chose those words exactly to be a little abstract.” That evening, he says, he received an email from Jill Soloway (which Soloway confirms she sent). “She wrote these words: ‘They have been after Maura from the beginning.’”

Soloway responds: “While much of the trans community immediately embraced the show, some vocally opposed the casting of a cis man, Jeffrey, in the lead role. This sentiment has persisted in parts of the community — coming up again on social media in the wake of these allegations. It was a text I wrote in frustration after pouring my heart into this show for years. I wanted to tell a story that brought power and visibility to trans people, and to my own family’s journey into understanding, acceptance, and pride.”

In it, Soloway — frantic and highly emotional over the beloved series’ implosion — asked Tambor if he would be “open to a third way.” Soloway suggested that, going forward, Tambor appear in the series only in flashback, as Mort Pfefferman, Maura’s pre-transition self. It was a not ideal but potentially workable concession to those who felt Tambor’s performance was an offensive example of “transface,” as some critics referred to it. Of course, the plan did nothing to address the Pandora’s box of sexual misconduct allegations that had just spilled into headlines. For the sake of the show, Tambor tentatively agreed to play the pre-trans character, just as soon as he was cleared by Amazon of the more ominous charges.

But that would not happen. Tambor was interviewed for nearly 10 hours during the inquiry, in two marathon sessions. “My lawyer was present,” he says, obviously reluctant to get into the details. “They asked me questions, and I responded to the questions. And that’s pretty much what I want to say about that.” Others were interviewed, as well. Staffers were asked whether Tambor had ever kissed them on the lips — which was something he often felt comfortable enough to do in their cozy work environment. “It’s a really loose set,” says one high-ranking producer who asked not to be identified. “Everybody behaves in a sensual manner because it’s a show about sex. Everyone says things like, ‘You’re so hot, oh my God. I had a dream about you last night.’” As Jay Duplass, who plays Maura’s music producer son, Josh, on the show, once put it, “Your job as an actor is to be emotionally present ... Or in the case of Transparent, have a ton of sex.”

Lysette never wavered on her story, telling investigators that she reported the thrusting incident promptly and that no action was taken. "I told plenty of people," she says. "I told people outside of Transparent, I told people inside Transparent.” One of those people was her roommate, Zackary Drucker, a 35-year-old producer on the show, who is also a trans woman. Drucker did not pass on the information.

“Trace and I shared many, many conversations during our time as roommates,” says Drucker. “Since I don’t have a clear memory of this conversation, it didn’t register to me as something I was meant to, or needed to, report in the context of our professional relationship.”

Barnes, meanwhile, had been laying low from the press; she’d signed a nondisclosure agreement with Tambor as part of her employment. But, on Feb. 26, a few weeks after Tambor was fired, Barnes’ lawyer told her the NDA was no longer in effect, and she gave an interview to THR. “I was barely at minimum wage, which was a clear abuse,” Barnes said, claiming she had to endure Tambor’s severe mood swings and round-the-clock demands. Despite Barnes’ reputation for having a raunchy sense of humor — “She’s the dirtiest fucking talker in the world,” is how one staffer puts it — Tambor’s alleged offensive talk and occasional “butt pats” made Barnes increasingly uncomfortable. “Toward the end, he had proposed to me that I be his mistress,” she said. “His actions have jeopardized many people’s jobs, especially many transgender people struggling to find work in Hollywood. ... He has done this to himself.”

Barnes continued speaking out on March 7, when she appeared on Megyn Kelly Today to add a startling new detail to her accusation: that Tambor had once watched her sleeping naked. She said it happened, bizarrely, when Barnes, Lysette and Tambor were living together under the same roof in Drucker’s parents’ home in Highland Park, northeast of downtown L.A., where Barnes was house-sitting over the summer. Lysette, still based in New York at the time, was occupying one of the bedrooms. Before production on the second season began, there was a two-week window until Tambor’s Pacific Palisades rental home would be ready. “He said, ‘You’re house-sitting, aren’t you? Do you mind if I stay with you?’” Barnes recalls. “I thought it was really weird. Here’s a guy of means, but he can’t afford a hotel for two weeks?”

Tambor confirms sharing living quarters with Barnes and Lysette — “My arrangements hadn’t come together. In retrospect, I should not have stayed there and just waited for my house to become ready” — but insists Barnes’ claims that he observed her sleeping naked are completely fabricated. Asked to address other specific allegations, including the propositioning and physical touching, he grows reticent. “I don’t want to characterize them,” he says. “What I said was that she was a disgruntled assistant. I think that was generous of me. I dispute her account. I did raise my voice at times, I was moody at times, there were times when I was tactless. But as for the other stuff, absolutely not.”

Siebert admits to having been aware of her client’s mercurial reputation. “He’s guilty of being an asshole at times, and being, you know, temperamental and moody,” she says. “And he feels awful about it and apologizes, and he’s working on himself. But in the 30 years I’ve worked with him, I’ve never been told about any behavior like what these women are accusing him of.” Tambor acknowledges the occasional outburst on previous shows — he references one “blowup” with actress Jessica Walter on Arrested Development for which he later “profusely apologized” (a rep for Walter says, “Jessica does not wish to talk about Jeffrey Tambor”) — but that something about Maura, his obsessive determination to make her as authentic as possible, brought out the worst in him.

“I drove myself and my castmates crazy,” he says. “Lines got blurred. I was difficult. I was mean. I yelled at Jill — she told me recently she was afraid of me. I yelled at the wonderful [executive producer] Bridget Bedard in front of everybody. I made her cry. And I apologized and everything, but still, I yelled at her. The assistant directors. I was rude to my assistant. I was moody. Sometimes I didn’t talk at all. And this is where the reader says, ‘So what?’ You know? ‘You’re coming in from the Palisades, you drive in, you get a good paycheck, you get to play one of the best roles in the world. So. What.’” He stares down at his barely touched lunch, a grilled ham and cheese sandwich propping up a pile of french fries. “But I was scared, because I was a cisgender male playing Maura Pfefferman. And my whole thing was, ‘Am I doing it right? Am I doing it right? Am I doing it right?’ To the point that I worried myself to death.”

Soloway and Tambor have not spoken since Feb. 15. That’s the day Soloway issued a statement expressing “great respect and admiration for Van Barnes and Trace Lysette, whose courage in speaking out about their experience on Transparent is an example of the leadership this moment in our culture requires.” Tambor issued his own rebuttal, saying he was “profoundly disappointed” in the “deeply flawed and biased” investigation’s outcome and “even more disappointed in Jill Soloway’s unfair characterization of me as someone who would ever cause harm to my fellow castmates.”

Tambor is still wounded by what he characterizes as his abandonment by Soloway. “I said to her, ‘Since you know the truth, would you make a public statement on my behalf?’ It’s my biggest disappointment that she hasn’t.” To that, Soloway responds: “I never told him I was going to accuse Van or Trace of being liars. He knew that nobody could do that. And I was really working with him to help him understand that a simple apology would go a really long way. I was hoping to get him there.”

Soloway’s own thinking on Tambor has evolved since the controversy broke. “I was hoping, in those early days, before Trace’s initial statement came out, that it all could have been a big misinterpretation — that one person’s harassment is another person’s dirty joke.” Eventually, Soloway realized the #MeToo movement was a “global tsunami — there’s nothing I could have done to stop it.” As for the allegations, Soloway contends that “it’s not a simple case of did he do it or didn’t he do it. Nobody said he was a predator — they said he sexually harassed people. He made enemies, and I don’t think he realized he was making enemies. You have to be very, very careful if you’re a person in power and treat people very appropriately.”

As for the future of Transparent, Soloway has begun to feel “a tiny bit like we are going to be OK.” The writing staff has begun discussions on how to tackle the show’s fifth — and, Soloway reveals, final — season. “Hopefully it sets the Pfeffermans up with some sort of beautiful reclaiming,” Soloway says. “I think we’re going to get there with some time.”

Since going public, Lysette and Barnes have taken different paths: Lysette is still pursuing acting in L.A. and has become politically active, speaking at events like the Las Vegas Women’s March and attending Time’s Up meetings. Barnes has returned to Missouri and enrolled in cosmetology school. “I have turned a new leaf!” Barnes wrote in an April 26 Facebook post. “This did not come with any assistance from my previous employer Transparent, nor Amazon or the fake feminist Jill Soloway, who found reason to fire our perpetrator, & instead of offering me financial reparations to upright myself again, offered me a Go Fund Me.”

As for Tambor, he has only just begun to emerge from what he calls a “fugue state.” When speaking about Maura, he almost exclusively uses the terminology of death and grieving. He’s currently reading two books on the subject, The Five Invitations: Discovering What Death Can Teach Us About Living Fully and The Bright Hour: A Memoir of Living and Dying. He breaks down in tears five separate times over the course of this interview, making note of it each time he does. “She was like a friend,” he says of Maura. “That may trigger eye rolls, but she was very real to me. And I think in many ways much more awake than I.” He says he still has regular conversations out loud with Maura and is deeply disappointed that she won’t ever get “to find her significant other.”

Despite his troubles, he still has a job on Arrested Development, the Netflix comedy in which Tambor plays the patriarch of another dysfunctional California clan, the Bluths. Its fifth season premieres on the streaming service May 29 in order to qualify it for the Emmy voting window. The scandal provided an unwelcome distraction during the final months of production, which began in August 2017 and wrapped in December. Nevertheless, Netflix chief content officer Ted Sarandos tells THR that it was a smooth shoot and Tambor will be in attendance at upcoming media appearances, including a May 17 premiere event in Hollywood. “In making and promoting seasons four and five of Arrested Development,” Sarandos says, “Jeffrey has always been totally professional.” So far, Tambor has earned support from fellow castmember David Cross (“A number of us stand behind him, ... and I am one of them,” Cross told amNew York in an interview) while another, Alia Shawkat, who also appeared on Transparent, told IndieWire she was “surprised” by the allegations but “supports the voice of the victims.”

Later that afternoon, after mixing with the locals at a nearby bookstore cafe — he offers one young man, an aspiring actor, some advice about an upcoming audition — Tambor turns back to the matter at hand, pledging the lessons he needed to learn have been learned. “People change,” he insists. “It’s already changed my behavior on set. Just walking in here today, into this cafe, I hadn’t seen the owner in a long time. I mean, do you hug? Do you not hug? When you see fans ...” He trails off. “You know what I do feel? More present. Everything’s just clearer to me.”

Tambor spends as much time as he can with his children, whom he’s attempted to shield from his ordeal. His favorite activity is reading bedtime stories to his 8-year-old twins Hugo and Eli. “I know Goodnight Moon pretty well,” he says. “And there’s this other book about a bear hunt. I’ve read it to every generation of child. They go on a bear hunt and they say, ‘Uh-oh, there’s mud! You can’t go over it, you can’t go under it. Got to go through it.’ And I can’t think of anything more typical in my life right now.”

“I can quote [the email] verbatim. It said, ‘We are in a coup. You are fucking fantastic. You have changed the world. We will get through this.'"
May 7, 3:45 p.m. Updated to clarify that Trace Lysette was not a member of her high school cheerleading squad, but did choreograph a dance with the team for a halftime show.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/featu ... nt-1108939
"It's not rocket surgery." - Elvis
User avatar
liminalOyster
 
Posts: 1873
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 10:28 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 57 guests