Amazon Priestess Tribe “Retires” From Z. Budapest’s Dianic Lineage

A truly remarkably statement and act of grace and honor, that I’m sure took a lot out of Lady Yeshe Rabbit, and will no doubt be met by as much controversy as that which it answers.

I, for one, express my gratitude for her lengthy efforts and thought, and her and her coven well in their continuing journey on this brambled path.

Awww… what a shame. I hate how paganism has become politicized by the far left.

I really don’t think it either fair or accurate to claim that the events going on in the Dianic and other feminist, Goddess-orientated traditions are the result of the “far left”.

LGBT rights, including in it the rights for transgendered people to be seen for who they really are, is a part of the march towards greater social liberalism. Social liberalism, which has championed the causes of all women, ethnic minorities, disabled people as well as LGBT individuals, is far from being restrained to the Far Left. Indeed, it is something embraced across almost all of the Left, and in Europe at least it is also welcomed by many in the Centre-Right too.

I for one welcome those brave individuals within the Dianic and other parts of the Pagan community who choose to stand up to sexism, racism, homophobia and transphobia within their own communities. May they help to usher in a better tomorrow.

And by “that” I mean the left vs right gaping hole that marginalizes both sides.

Good Job Lady Yeshe Rabbit. I find it quite interesting that Z would choose to use the term “Genetic Women Only” when no genetic testing is actually done. There are numerous cases in which individuals exhibit differences in genetic gender that do not coincide with their outward gender appearance.

Indeed! It is a lot more common than is often known for a person to have genetic markers for both sexes that are completely invisible to the eye.

*un-educated on the first paragraph

And I do apologise if I come across as aggressive; I really don’t wish to express any hateful feelings toward yourself. I just despise your views because I have seen first hand the damaging effect that transphobia has on the community and on individuals. It really is as bad as racism, sexism or homphobia.

I’ve already said that I can accept that there are differences between people. What I refuse to accept is that surgery somehow corrects that difference. This was also at the heart of Z’s distinguishing between ‘women born women’, a statement she caught a lot of flak about.

The bigger issue to me is that there’s been a very public application of peer pressure and attempts at behavior modification through shaming directed at Z and people who agree with her perspective, rather than an attempt to consider her opinions as equally valid as anyone elses. It’s been all so very… Catholic.

Sindarintech, can you honestly say that you would oppose attempts by the Pagan community to root out sexism, racism and homophobia in their community ?

If you can say that in all truth then I can better understand why you would choose to oppose progressive elements when it came to the area of trans rights.

Otherwise then you are singling out a particular minority for persecution, and in my opinion you should be rightly criticised for that.

So, where would one turn to learn of a more inclusive Goddess-centered faith now? There aren’t many books out there which speak of this inclusiveness. I can only hope that future generations can learn from this.

I think that there should be room for differing opinions, without all the drama that’s been part of this ‘discussion’. Inclusion also mean having people at the table that strongly disagree. It seems to me that what’s being promoted as ‘progressive’ is actually a blatent attempt to homogenize everyones experiences and opinions into a borg-like ‘one’. This is precisely the reason why I’ve been backing away from the majority of people who identify as pagan: there is an increasing movement towards intolerance of traditional values.

My progressivism ends at the transexual line, largely because I think much of it (based on my experiences with three of them over ten years) is psychological. Arguments to the contrary that include statements like “their spirit is a different gender than their bodies”, which have been made here previously, really leaves me with the impression that any touch of rationality has left the room.

I think that every path has its right to practice as it wants. I don’t see value in sacrificing animals, but I understand that this is what some folks do. I can see value in gender-restricted rituals such as those done by Z, and I can respect it. It’s not my thing, but NO ONE has the right to tell her that she’s wrong. No one.

Sad that inclusion has become a left-wing idea. There’s nothing against it in the core ideas of Conservatism.

Actually, there’s not one fewer. Amazon Priestess Tribe as was continues unchanged as Bloodroot Honey Priestess Tribe. But it is now part of a new, more inclusive lineage and putting energy into that.

Christina, yes the Reply option vanishes at a certain depth into the weeds. Welcome to the pond.

Thanks, Baruch!

And on a full moon as well.

There are those who believe people with dark skin are subhuman. There are those who believe the Jews control the world’s financial systems and people who believe Obama’s birth certificate was faked as a part of a conspiracy to put a Kenyan Muslim communist terrorist in office. A simple Google search will reveal plenty of web pages produced by those people. It will also reveal plenty more web pages laughing at those people and calling them doofuses. (Doofi?)

Disagreement does not equal “intentional silencing.” Freedom of speech does not give you the right to a cheering section. If lots of people think your opinion is silly, bigoted and distasteful it could well be that the problem does not lie with lots of people.

That’s just it, not all opinions are “equally valid as anyone elses.” If someone believes women are all bitches and whores and the vast majority of rape cases are just “buyer’s remorse,” their opinion is not equally valid as anyone else’s — it’s misogynistic and stupid. If someone believes the earth is flat and was created in six days several thousand years ago, their opinion is not equally valid as every biologist, paleontologist or satellite technician in the world — it’s wrong.

If people find Z’s behavior distasteful – and frankly, I think her hateful “transies” comment did her a lot more damage than her insistence on “women born women” rituals – they have the right to express their opinions. They also have the right to distance themselves from her if they don’t share her opinions. You claim this is “Catholic” but it’s actually more Protestant – a schism over doctrinal and theological differences.

Lady Yeshe!

Well done.

If anything I think that speaks to Z’s essentialism and ignorance around the realities of gender.

I cannot like this comment hard enough. Thank you for your your clarity and brevity!

As penises are not inherently male, since many women have them, perhaps your traumatized coven sisters need to get over that false assumption. Not all penises are going to attack them. And I speak as a cisgender woman who was sexually assaulted by cisgender men. I came to learn that truth. The fact they refuse to try says more about their issues than it does about their root trauma. The fact you enable their phobia says the same about you. Nothing good.

And also, why would they have to look down for the entire ritual? Isn’t it rude to stare at people instead of looking them in the eye? What kind of women are IN your circle?

That is totally disingenuous. The political is personal. The personal is political. Trans* rights are PERSONAL because trans* people are PEOPLE and any community that contains trans* people will have to acknowledge them and their rights.

Because her opinions are NOT as valid as anyone else’s. Truth exists, y’know. Everything is not subjective.

Um, you do not get to decide who is ‘fully’ transgender, or assign degrees to people. You do not have to have surgery to be trans*. There are myriad reasons why any trans* person may not have surgery, may not take hormones, may not really give a damn about ‘passing’… and that is all that person’s decision. You don’t get to judge their trans*ness based on arbitrary cis standards.

I have only one comment.

I refuse to accept the term “cis”. I was born a female, a woman, a lady. To use the term “cis” is to make me less than who and what I am. I bleed. I have borne children. My body changes because of the biological and physiological functions that take place.

I am not less of a person because (to use a term from Lady Gaga) I WAS BORN THIS WAY!!!!

Ummm, your comment makes no sense, though. It’s a descriptor, the same way that race or ethnicity might be. It does not imply a degradation of status. It is not a slight or a slur.

Trans women are also women, ladies. They may not bleed, but that does not make them less than, either.

No one is saying that you are “less of a person” because your sex and gender match up– where on earth did you get that fantastical notion?

I was born a female, a woman, a lady. To use the term “cis” is to make me less than who and what I am.

…. Um, no. That is exactly what “Cis” means.

Beautiful

Responding to a later comment.

I can see value in gender-restricted rituals such as those done by Z, and I can respect it. It’s not my thing, but NO ONE has the right to tell her that she’s wrong. No one.

Ummm, no. EVERYONE has the right to tell her that she’s wrong and EVERYONE has the right to tell her that she’s right. She is under no obligation to listen, mind you: just as free speech doesn’t guarantee a cheering section, it doesn’t guarantee that your target audience will pay attention to you.

Along with that freedom of speech thing is freedom of association. Z has the right to admit or reject anyone she wants from her private ceremonies. I may disagree with the criteria she chooses and think she is silly, out of touch or even bigoted for making those choices – but I won’t hesitate to defend her right to make those choices.

Full moon. Solar flares. And the moon void of course all day. Powerful. Just sayin’…

Disclosure: I am Raven of the Redwoods, a Bloodroot Honey Priestess.

“While I can accept that there are people who have convinced themselves that they are men living in womens bodies, etc…”

I guess you’ve never heard of XY androgen insensitivity. But I suppose you’d just dismiss such people as being ‘irrational’.

Wow. That they could still come to that clarity amidst all the anger and heat the subject has generated says volumes for them. I’m in awe.

If a more inclusive Goddess-centered faith needs to be evoked rather than discovered, you can evoke it by your own actions and be sheltered under the Pan-Dianic umbrella.

To All Belov-eds Reading My Sacred Statement on ***WAY of the RABBIT*** Followed by the Important Amazon Priestess Tribe Statement of Their New Glorious Truths, Please Note that Fostering Co-ALLY-ship does Not Negate My Devotion to My Belov-ed High Priestess, Z. Budapest. I am Embracing Dianic, Pan-Dianic, and Everything In Between! ALL IS ONE………..*Bows with Reverence*
Sincerely,
Rosmarinus Stehlik
(Lady RO)

Nobody is being silenced at all. The marketplace of ideas is working at 100% peak efficiency. Everyone on all sides of this debate has had their voice heard, as at no time in human history. People put their ideas out there, some find a market, and some don’t. There will always be people who think transgender is just some made up PC nonsense, and they’re free to think so, and to say so. The vast majority of us aren’t buying it, however. The freedom to hold and express an idea doesn’t create an entitlement to popularity or freedom from criticism.

Don’t be so sure of what the vast majority thinks about anything. It tends to sound like Pauline Kael saying that she could not understand why Nixon won because none of her friends voted for him. The vast majority out there may very well view transgendered as freaks of nature on the Discovery Channel. They just don’t post to a Pagan blog.

A lot of excuses been made defending racial and ethnic “descriptors” towards people who’ve made clear they don’t LIKE being called said name.
And each time then someone uses them anyway, rudeness is obvious.

You’re not entitled to dictate what other people are “allowed” to find triggering. It’s up to the women in these circles to determine their own boundaries and safespace. It’s their power and their choice as sovereign beings. It’s not your decision to make as an outsider.

I am absolutely unsympathetic to the idea that some sexual abuse survivors “might” be triggered by seeing a pre-op or non-op trans woman’s penis. My experience has been that this is almost invariably a gleefully malicious hypothetical which is trotted out to justify discrimination against trans women. Even in the very rare cases where a non-imaginary sexual abuse survivor is unavoidably triggered, it is HER responsibility to absent herself from skyclad public events rather than demanding that all trans women be forcibly excluded from them.

The fact that abuse triggering arguments like this are never aimed at anyone other than trans women is ample demonstration of their total insincerity. Or are we actually going to pretend that it’s just a coincidence that these arguments just happen to exclusively target the most vulnerable group of women in the entire community in a way that just happens to dovetail perfectly with all of the social bigotry against them?

It’s not rude, it’s equable.

I’ve observed that those who object to the ‘cis’ prefix are almost always the same as those invested in sustaining transphobia, or their own cis* privilege.

When trans people no longer face regular and persistent humiliation, prejudice and erasure for the ‘difference’ that people like MommaCat, Z Budapest and you maintain as essential, we will no longer have any need for the differentiation of ‘cis.’

Trust me… given what we have to put up with from the likes of you, the insistence on the use of the term to keep the language balanced is a very mild response.

Meanwhile she has offered an apology for having cause any hurt or offence.

No, she didn’t. She offered an “apology” – mouthing words while continuing to behave in an offensive manner. Words are meaningless when your actions don’t back them up.

greatly-debated phrase “women-born-women.”

Every time I see this, all I can think is “Were some of us actually born to somebody besides a woman?”

(Cause that would be really, really interesting.)

If Z Budapest wants to limit participation in women’s rites to women(!),

Transwomen ARE WOMEN.

I think many people misunderstand the meaning of the term “cis-” (including, it seems, Rabbit). “Cissexual” is not a specific replacement for “woman-born-woman” (which is a descriptor that dates only to the 1970s and was coined specifically to justify excluding trans women). “Cis” describes and applies to non-trans men as well as non-trans women. It means “you are a person – woman or man – whose gender identity is congruent with the sex you were assigned at birth.”

At the risk of dropping a(nother) bomb into this conversation, I feel I need to address this point, because it’s been bothering me as I read the discussions around this issue. Those of you who’ve been following my comments know that I am in alignment with the outrage of my trans sisters over Z’s offensive and confrontational attitude, while recognizing that her freedoms of religion and association are as valid as theirs, and have therefore tried to articulate some common principles that might hold for public ritual space (as has Kenaz and a few other posters here).

I cannot, however, accept the blanket statement that transwomen are women, full stop. They may well be fully woman-*spirited*, but they’re still male-*bodied*, even when post-operative (the male genetic and hormonal traits are still present), and I am dismayed that in a religion as strongly *embodied* as modern paganism, there seems to be no public attempt to discuss this point in any nuanced way. I’m not trying to belittle or insult my trans sisters here; I’m trying to grasp their religious understanding of their selves within a pagan context. Can someone direct me to some resources or discussion that could clarify this?

I don’t want to be called “trans,” especially given the special discrimination that trans women are singled out for, but I don’t see that stopping any time soon.

> a religion as strongly *embodied* as modern paganism

Say what?

“Modern paganism” isn’t a religion.

I’m not even sure what you mean by “embodied” here.

For most trans people, their self-knowledge as men or women has no “religious” component at all, and the only context that matters is the same one for everyone else: life.

Would you prefer “religious movement”? I don’t think it’s terribly controversial to suggest that there’s sufficient commonality to identify “paganism” as a religious entity.

“Embodied,” in this context, means that paganism views the “embodiedness” of the practitioner as positive, as opposed to, for example, most understandings of Christianity wherein the spirit is elevated over the body. In paganism, bodies are celebrated. I’m trying to reconcile that with the apparent position advocated by transwomen that, in fact, bodies *don’t* matter – that their identification of themselves as women trumps in every respect the physical body that they inhabit (a term I use guardedly, as it seems to me to imply an essential spirit/body split). Hopefully that clarifies my question.

I guess it’s a historic change, but these sorts of breaks with traditions have been going on for a long time. Protean tradition breaking from Gardnerian, and other traditions which have chosen to break with their founding group and start their own type of tradition. It’s the nature of change and growth. Things do not stay the same.

Your post echoes a lot of what I’ve been trying to get across as well.

I recognize that it’s not a popular opinion, particulary on this blog, but there are some of us in the real world who simply cannot accept the break with reality that is required to say a “woman is a man and a man is a woman… just because they say so!”. I was born with the ability to think rationally, and this is simply an irrational statement. Surgery doesn’t change anything… just like changing ones name doesn’t change anything. I’m simply not going to drink the Kool-aid on this one.

What Z is attributed with writing last year hurt some folks’ feelings, but she spoke HER truth. I sickens me to see people attack her in the way they have. There’s an awful lot of arrogance and intolerance being shown in this very-one-sided debate… and the pro-trans folks have done a great job at silencing dissenting opinions. Who would want to participate in a one-sided conversation? Folks with dissenting opinions are referred to as bigots, uninformed, backward, intolerant. How does that promote the inclusion that is supposed to be so valued?

Truth exists in science. Truth in human culture is relative. MY truth is based on experiences with trans people in real life that were uncategorically mentally deluded. The conversation here proves unequivocally that people can talk themselves into believing all kinds of silliness. Some Christians are convinced that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time. That doesn’t make it true.

I take them no more seriously than I do the rantings of a schizophrenic.

Would you rather people use another unpopular word to avoid having to type out trans women?
No. so this is not derailment.

You do not have the right to a cheering section. If you express opinions that dehumanize other people, expect them to get vociferously criticized.

If there is a “vast majority” of pagans who think that way, I’ve never seen them in significant numbers at any public community function, and that’s all to the good.

I am honestly a little bothered by people using religious space as therapy – especially in a religious movement that emphasizes self-taught priest/ess/es and only recently opened its first Seminary. We generally don’t have the training to deal with people’s traumas, we shouldn’t be doing that. If you have severe trauma dealing with naked bodies? You need to be getting professional help for it.

But besides that, honestly tell me this: Would you support excluding ANY other group of women for physical characteristics they cannot change, because it might traumatize women to have them in a sacred healing space? Unless you can answer “yes” to that question, this looks a lot less like concern and a lot more like unexamined prejudice.

> I take them no more seriously than I do the rantings of a schizophrenic.

And there you have it, folks. There is no conversation to be had because the primary subjects of the discussion are insane, and entirely to be dismissed.

And of course, any counter-argument is set aside as “hard leftist” – because not demeaning and erasing people is entirely a leftist concern.

Your truth, sindarintech, is based on prejudice, not “science” – as evidenced by your constant reference to your alleged experiences with some trans people.

It occurs to me that in some ways the creationists may be right… dinosaurs and humans evidently do live at the same time. Some dinosaurs even post on pagan blogs.

Kenneth: I think you may be misreading my position. I would not argue that the body trumps the spirit, just as I would not argue that the spirit trumps the body. Both are constitutive of the person that we are in this incarnation (this holds even if you believe in reincarnation, which I don’t). When I see transgender people arguing that they should be considered fully the gender of their spirits, with no reference at all to the gender of their bodies, within the context of a spiritual system which at least purportedly values the body as equally constitutive of your identity, then I question how they reconcile these positions for themselves. That questioning is a request for information, not an attempt to discredit.

I agree that Stephen Hawking is not in any way defined solely by his body. I would also argue that Hawking’s self-identity has been fundamentally transformed by his engagement with his ALS, and that his drive to excel intellectually may well be *due to* his desire to overcome the limitations of his body. I don’t know the man personally, so that’s speculation, of course, but I think not unreasonable speculation.

Cigfran: Agreed, this is probably not the right place for that discussion. It seemed like a good place to ask for pointers to appropriate information from people who might know where to find it, though.

Woman.

Why is it assumed or the current official story or whatever that people don’t ever change over their lifetimes, and that people can’t go from being m to f or from f to m?

“cis-” is not name-calling.

If you want a “better” term, make one. “Better” requires it to not be insulting, belittling or dismissive to trans people.

“You’re oppressing me!” isn’t particularly persuasive when said by an 80% majority (Christians), why should it be more persuasive when said by a 99.5% majority?

How is it “pure politics” to discuss the role of experienced gender in Paganism? That’s a disingenuous charge, and it does nothing to further any conversation. As for your other statements – where are these men who are “appropriating” your gender identity and faith? And how, exactly, are they accomplishing this? This is the same argument against gay marriage, just given new window dressing. No one is forcing you to do anything or circle with anyone you don’t wish to, and I fail to see how what someone else identifies as harms you in any way.
Secondly, if you’re actually interested in understanding the issues under discussion you should read some of the above posts – your understanding of gender simply doesn’t align with reality. Who are women? It’s not as simple as you make it out to be, and again, it’s a conversation that’s not just political and is worth having. Is it defined by chromosomes, secondary sex characteristics, hormone levels, self-identification, genitalia, ability to menstruate, ability to give birth…….? If you found out that one of your coven sisters was born intersex and assigned a female identity at that time, would that make her less of a “woman” to you? Would you refuse to circle with her again? Please understand, I’m emphatically not saying there is a right answer to the questions I’m posing – for you, me, or anyone. But these are real, significant questions that deserve real thought and that can further our understanding of sex and gender in our faith and our faith community. Reducing the argument to “I will only circle with ‘real’ women” or “women-born-women” doesn’t cut it – not because you should ever feel pressured to circle with people you don’t wish to, but because it doesn’t adequately address who would fall into which camp from your point of view, given the multiplicity of variables that can be used to define “woman.”

Truth in human culture is just another name for tradition, a.k.a. “it’s been this way for a long time and changing it would make us uncomfortable”. I don’t accept that. Truth should be supported by the facts, especially where it involves how we treat people.

This. Blaming things entirely on the “far left” or “right-wing radicals” tends to belittle the common values that everyone across the spectrum shares.

Like fairness. Left and Right may have slightly different ideas of what fair treatment looks like, but we are all generally in agreement that people should treat each other fairly.

Stef and others here …………take off your blinders . First off Dianic wicca has for most of it’s existance been feminist , radical left leaning in there views . This is nothing new .Secoundly, No ONE within the pagan community ,Particulary men, want to dominate Dianic wicca , or any other group for that matter.In the Wiccan general community men are out numbered at least 2 to 1 . Altho this may not be the case in the outside world , in general pagan men are on your side .Most Wiccan covens are female dominated and lead . The rest of the Pagan community is equalitarian in it’s make up and leadership . We , pagan men , are not your enemy , we are your suppoerters. Pagan men is general want a strong confident woman at our side as our equals , never subserviant.

Having to read others’ displeasure at your thoughtlessness is not silencing. If your conscience is telling you to stop being thoughtless, perhaps it would behoove you to listen.

I think there’s two things going on. One of them, as I’ve noted before, is that at this point a Dianic coven in the Bay Area might well be more likely to run into a trans woman seeking admission than a black or Hispanic woman. Given the ethnic and cultural homogeneity of the Pagan community, it literally might not be an issue. The second is that, sadly, it would be seen as “racist” to openly exclude a black or Hispanic member while excluding trans women is seen as “preserving our safe space.”

In practice, I’d respect the rights of any private coven to circle with the people of their choosing and to reject members for any reason or for no reason at all. I might disagree with those reasons but as an outsider it’s not my decision to make. If someone honestly feels they cannot do spiritual work with a trans person, a black person, a gay person, a fat person, etc. in the circle and their group agrees with them, then I feel the right to free association should be upheld – even if I have to hold my nose to uphold it.

This is why I hate the mainstream news. Somehow, YEC isn’t “disproven by scientific evidence,” or just plain bad theology from any sane perspective (even Christians didn’t place much value on how old the earth was or was not until the early 20th century), no, it’s a valid opinion and we should “teach the controversy.”

I also agree that while Z has every right to exclude transpeople from her rituals, she should NOT make such demeaning comments. She made it sound almost like there’s some Secret Male Conspiracy sending in SPIES or something, not like, “hey, I’m not comfortable including transwomen in rituals that mention things like menstruation, which don’t really apply to them.” The latter I would have understood.

Seeing as how CAYA Coven is continuing to support at least one group of cisgender cissexual priestesses who are holding “moon blood” rites, and seeing as how Z Budapest is continuing to hold womyn-born-womyn only rites and events, I’d say the Borg seems to be failing miserably on that “mass conformity” thing.

Dunno about the Pagan community at large, but I support 100% Z’s rites to admit or deny whom she sees fit to her private rituals held in her private space. I have serious issues with some of her words – and with the way some of her followers are trying to muddy the waters with “nobody can prove that came from her private DSL line and even if it did maybe Hacker X took her computer over” and similar rot. But I have no issue with her right to free association.

This. Include or exclude whomever you want in your rituals. Like or dislike other people’s decisions regarding ritual requirements.

But don’t be a hateful so-and-so about it. “I don’t agree with Person X on that issue” is all one really has to say.

I simply find it suspect that no one in these arguments are attempting to find a way to address the specific trigger. If it is merely the sight of a penis that is the concern, then the simplest solution would be to have everyone robe, and thus the trigger is removed. Since no one seems to have discussed this option, it seems like the trigger argument is a bit of a dodge for people who just do not want to say that they never intend to incorporate transwomen in their rituals.

I would have more respect for the people using this argument if they would just come out and say that. I would still call it an unfortunate choice, but it is their right to associate, or not associate, with whoever they want. I simply don’t find the particular penis-trigger argument to be a fair one, because it seems like a way to try to derail discussions, and it does a lot of damage. It continues to implicitly enforce the idea that a transwoman’s body is at least in part a man’s body, unless she chooses to have surgery. It also continues to equate a neutral genitalia with threats of violence, and perpetuates the stereotype, that is harmful to all genders, that violence is purely the realm of bearers of penises.

Neither you nor any of the other people posting anonymously in support of Z Budapest – if you’re not all the same person, that is – have offered any alternate explanation as to how that hateful statement, made using Z’s rather idiosyncratic English, was posted from Z Budapest’s private DSL line. So the “jury is out” only with regard to the question of “how long will a few desperate people – or one desperate person – try to muddy the waters and obfuscate rather than owning their fearless leader’s hateful words and either supporting or refuting them?”

Or intersex conditions in general. Generally, an intersex child isn’t given the chance to say whether he/she identifies as male or female–the “extra” tissue is lopped off, the kid is raised as a girl, and often even the parents don’t know any of this.

I fully agree with what you’ve said, Christina, with one tiny exception: trans women most certainly do bleed, and often not just from surgery. The phrase that Z. and others have used that a woman must “bleed and not die” does not apply to trans women far too often, alas, because quite often people who don’t think they should exist make them both bleed and die.

They may not menstrually bleed, certainly; but bleed they most certainly do, and have done, and are doing as we speak.

“Not dying” is a privilege far too few minority populations don’t have.

Silencing would be threatening you with violence if you said anything more. Moral persuasion is not “silencing,” no matter how much you would like to paint it as such.

Katie, minority vs. minority belittling happens a lot, and it is usually mutual. All women are minorities.

I don’t have a lot of sympathy with “women-born-women only” public events and question whether they have a place on the public calender at a mixed gender identity gathering. That goes beyond the issue of skyclad or not.

I do have an issue with telling a rape survivor she needs to “get over it” or further shaming her. And I also accept the right of people to circle for spiritual work with others whom they choose – even if I disagree with the reasoning and rationale behind those choices. (Heck, I’ll go so far as to say they don’t need to rationalize those choices – at this point Z and Co. would probably do best to withdraw into their own little womyn-born-womynspace and quit trying to justify their choices by whatever means necessary).

Insofar as the women in a particular circle wish to make the rules for their particular circle and their private rituals, I’m 100% with you. They are free to exclude whomever they wish on whatever criteria they wish. But that right stops once they get into public space.

I am sorry for the pain your covenmates suffered. Sexual trauma is one of the worst things a human being can suffer.

That said, there is a point at which one must try to pick up the pieces and move beyond hurt to healing. It’s harder to do that if one isn’t willing to face up to one’s fears (in this case, a woman fearing all men because of the horrible thing that a man has done to her).

I was emotionally abused as a child, and it has been very hard for me to learn to say “no” and to choose the life I want to lead, rather than letting others dictate my Path for me. But I still have to get outside my comfort zone now and again, or I know that I will never recover. It is a necessary step.

Or money! What does it say about us if we turn someone away because he/she cannot afford a voluntary surgical procedure?

What kind of women are IN your circle?

Presumably women who chose to be in that circle, and who should have the right to speak up as to whom they do and do not wish to circle with. And so long as they are doing that in their private circles, I support their rights to do so 100%.

To use an analogy that’s been thrown around here a few times: if Ealikchihoo’s coven has several women who were sexually assaulted by black men and who are triggered by seeing naked black people of any gender, then they have the right to exclude black women from their PRIVATE rituals. Whether or not I like their decision is irrelevant: it’s their private space and their private circle, and they’re entitled to invite whomever they feel they can work with in “perfect love and perfect trust” without regard for the feelings of anyone else.

They do not have the right to space at a large public event for a ritual which they declare off-limits to black women. Not even if they make their criteria for admission clear on the calendar and not even if they assure us they have nothing against black people and that there are several other events going on at the same time which are open to black people.

A person’s safe space is one thing. I don’t want other people in my bedroom, nor do I like for my own parents to visit my apartment. This is my prerogative–I can exclude people from my own private space at whim, with no real moral issue involved.

But public places are PUBLIC. If a gay couple moves in next door to a homophobe, the homophobe cannot insist that the gay neighbors not show themselves in his presence. Even if it makes him uncomfortable to see gay people. They may be “outsiders,” but they still have the right to go about their lives like everyone else.

These women will have to be around men at some point ANYWAY–half the human race is male, FFS. It does them no good, and quite a bit of harm, to coddle them as if an intense fear of maleness were not a severe handicap in our society. Getting them used to being around people who possess a penis is part of the healing process.

If YOUR “safe space” intrudes on other people’s ability to live a normal healthy life, something is WRONG.

Frankly, it sounds like you and others object to “Cis-” not because you find it insulting but because it implies that cis-women and trans-women are both equally women.

No one thinks that you are any less than a full woman, MommaCat.

Generally, “cis” is only used in discussions regarding transgender issues, in order to distinguish women-who-were-born-as-women from transwomen. Simply saying “women” doesn’t work, as both ciswomen and transwomen are women. And “women who were born as women” is awkward and wordy and does not lend itself to discussion.

The terms “cisman” and “transman” are used during such conversations as well.

The term is not meant to offend or exclude, simply as a way of making meaningful conversation about gender-identity issues possible.

And this is coming from a woman-born-as-a-woman who fully intends to someday bear children from her own womb. We honestly do not mean to offend.

That’s an unbelievably nasty strawman argument, dude. I never said that rape survivors need to “get over it”.

Those who have suffered traumatic experiences of any kind are certainly entitled — ethically, if not always legally — to compassion, understanding and reasonable accommodation of their needs. However, demanding the categorical exclusion of trans women from women’s spaces is a grossly unreasonable accommodation.

Again, the fact that this entire train of thought is never used for any purpose other than running over the right of trans women to be included with other women illustrates its complete insincerity. Those who make this argument are simply exploiting the emotional value of “OMG rape survivor” to try to make the issue untouchable, and that’s a viewpoint which is built upon unthinking hatred against trans women rather than sincere compassion for sexual assault survivors.

And why haven’t you and MommaCat done so? “Woman” is perfectly good in casual conversation, but in those discussions which are specifically about gender identity it can be confusing. “Cis” and “trans” were adopted solely for use in those conversations, so that we can avoid any tricky arguments over how to define the terms “man” and “woman.”

Well, there was a man recently who gave birth…but you do have a point. “Women-born-women” is awkward and ambiguous in meaning.

Question: Since when in gender something you can choose?

Because we have yet to hear of a better way to distinguish between the two types of women in conversations regarding gender identity. If you have a better word to use for the specific type of woman who was born with a female reproductive system, then please, TELL US.

Um…it is “name-calling” to the exact same extent as calling you Homo sapiens is name-calling. “Cis” and “trans” are neutral descriptors, like “prokaryotic” or “Canis lupus familiaris” or “Escherichia coli.”

Name-calling implies that there is already another perfectly adequate label, and that the name being used was created solely for the purpose of being insulting (like various racial/ethnic/homophobic slurs). This is not the case with the prefixes “cis” and “trans.” Jason explained this at the end of the article.

What?

Transwomen ARE women. Just like lesbians are women, and just like you and I are women. There are a lot of women I don’t like, but I certainly don’t say hurtful things about them, or act as if my dislike somehow makes them not be women anymore.

Also, no one is saying that Z Budapest can’t continue to exclude transfolk. We’re supporting the decision of a woman who doesn’t want to exclude transfolk from her coven to separate from Z Budapest’s group and do her own thing, leaving the Dianic Wicca tradition to keep doing what THEY were doing.

This, exactly. I totally 100% support Z Budapest’s right to exclude men and transwomen from her PRIVATE rituals. But:

1. When people have PAID to attend a public event, you can’t exclude them from a part of that event based on gender. That’s discrimination.

2. Saying mean and hurtful things about an entire group of people, then acting like it’s other people’s fault for being offended, WILL make other people angry. You have the right to say hurtful things; you do not have the right to keep people from disliking the things you say.

I view my embodiedness as a positive thing. I love my body and enjoy doing things that please my body, like feeling the wind in my hair, eating good food, or enjoying certain more private activities.

However, my mind and soul ALSO MATTER. They are equally as important. In my mind, I do not identify as either male or female–I am what is called “agendered.” Just because I have a woman’s plumbing doesn’t make me totally and irrevocably “female” or “feminine.” My soul is neuter.

Desiree: the comment wasn’t personally aimed at you. If you’ve followed my posts you’ll see that I’ve generally been a harsh critic of Z’s actions in this case and of the idea of “genetic women only” rituals at public events no matter what their rationale. But the very idea that a rape survivor might be triggered by the sight of a penis is being questioned and even mocked by a lot of people here. And sorry, I’m not comfortable with that. If that means I’m a bad trans ally/genderqueer person, then so be it.

I think it’s belittling to appropriate someone else’s trauma to enable your own discrimination, honestly! I think that the women making these rules are being kind of opportunistic.

That may well be so, but I am made exceedingly uncomfortable by the suggestion that I (or you, or anyone) should be passing judgment on someone else’s path to or speed of recovery from trauma.

Do you really believe that every woman making the claim that they find penises triggering because of past trauma is being “opportunistic?” Or that they are saying this solely because they want to enable discrimination against trans women?

Um, saying that the idea of a safe space is a “gleefully malicious hypothetical” is preeeetty much implying that rape survivors need to get over it.

You seem to be running on your experience? Because I have met and associated and begun to understand many survivors and what triggers are. Am I a liar? Are you just going to cover your ears and pretend my own experiences lie under yours? Why on earth would you ever choose willingly to IGNORE the experiences of others?

I genuinely don’t understand why the concept of triggers is difficult for some to comprehend. I am a trans person. Transphobic dialogue can discomfort me to the point of physical panic. Hence, I often need a comfortable safe space where I will not encounter transphobia, so that I can be comfortable. I mean, do you just… not… get this??????????? This is just… it’s kind of a thing that actually happens? To many survivors…?

Like, I’m trying to understand your argument, and it’s nice that you’re arguing for the trans perspective, but bloody hell, all the trans people I know have grasped the concept of triggers, largely because triggering content affects their daily lives and is a big deal. Get with it.

As a matter of fact, transsexuality is *not* a conflict between an female spirit and an male body. It has been quite firmly established that the neurological sex of a trans woman is physically female, which makes her just as much a “woman born woman” as any cis woman. Her gender identity contradicts her external genitalia, but she is literally hardwired female in the brain.

The factually correct conceptualization of a transsexual woman, thus, is an unambiguously female spirit in a biologically intersex body which is incorrectly assumed to be male at birth due to the Western medical system relying solely on a superficial examination of the external genitalia in order to assign sex at birth.

The problem is that private space rules are set by the people in that private space. Freedom of religion doesn’t mean that I have to let the Jehovah’s Witnesses into my house and listen to them: freedom of speech doesn’t mean I have to tune into Rush Limbaugh and that I’m oppressing him if I don’t. And that same freedom applies to a Dianic circle that holds a ritual in their own space and on their own dime.

I think it is absolutely worth discussing these matters and I think many Dianics (CAYA being one example) are finding the arguments against trans-inclusion increasingly unconvincing. But that change is going to have to come from within. About all we can do to speed the process is engage in dialogue – and about the only way to do that is for each side to assume the other is negotiating in good faith and to take their concerns seriously.

Desiree: Thank you for the info about the neurological basis of transsexuality. I’d not seen that before. I’m not certain that medically you are correct in referring to this as an “intersex” condition, since “intersexuality” seems to specify ambiguous external genitalia or conflict between external genitalia and chromosomal karyotype. This may or may not coincide with the sort of variation in the stria terminalis that you mentioned, and given that the key papers are apparently all based on postmortem examination of the brain, I don’t see how you’d make any use of that data in a diagnostic sense.

I will happily reframe my point without reference to “spirit”, if you like, and describe it as the assertion by transwomen that their *self-perception* (whether spiritual or neurological) as women should override their genetic and (at least occasional) genital sex. I still see this as a problematic argument from the point of view of an embodied spirituality, though, insofar as it seemingly devalues the physical body in favor of the self-perception (however that self-perception may arise).

Societally determined birth gender is an idea. Since the only use such phrase (which isn’t that long) would have is extremely limited, why use a shorter one, I wonder. “Born with a female reproductive system” isn’t that long either, though that’s less specific. Most people know what their parents thought they were as infants and what was put legally on their birth certificate. People can change their determination later in life, but generally in the interim, someone is going to be seen and treated as that gender that’s on that slip of paper. As for socially determined adult gender – you don’t have to have everyone agree on your gender to have at least a segment of society (especially pagans) that will.

It puts people into two camps, and if someone doesn’t like said word the rabid objection to stopping its use speaks volumes.
It’s not like people are asking for too much to say “don’t call me that”. It’s that some think it’s too much to be polite.

My belief is from a least-harm standpoint. Amateurs practicing psychology and/or social work can do a great deal of harm, even when their intentions are good (a friend of mine tells me about someone who tried to install a hypnotic trigger in his boyfriend that would help him lose weight and ended up giving him an eating disorder. This was someone who intended to do a good thing and ended up doing something VERY BAD – and yes, she is a certified hypnotherapist and she did have to clean up the mess). Relatively few Pagans are trained psychotherapists or trained social workers. Dealing with someone’s traumas is something that needs to be done in a professional situation, not in Sacred Space – so when people refer to said traumas as a justification to exclude, it feels very manipulative to me.

Katie: I’m not certain how limiting ritual space to ciswomen only out of respect to those traumatized by sexual abuse at the hands of men qualifies as psychotherapy or social work. I’m pretty sure that you’re not suggesting that we should *never* have rituals to assist our co-religionists in dealing with particular issues (what else is magic for?), and there’s quite a bit of work that can be done that falls below the threshold of concern that you seem to be articulating here.

Kenaz, part of my reason to use Anonymous is because that’s the only excuse you need to be insulting me half the time, and I find that humourous.
Anonymous are the cool cats.

It isn’t that long. 40 years ago there was different philosophy. I’ve seen this in debate in the past 5 years

Since you bring that up, I’m not convinced there isn’t any intention of insult/slur.

Call it a hunch.

So what specifically don’t you like about the prefix “cis-” other than the fact that it suggests “cis women” and “trans women” are both women?

“There’s a lot of feminist philosophies”

So true. I became a conscioius feminist in 1969 and a conscious Pagan in 1987 so I spent eighteen years, including the minefield we call the Seventies, framing women’s issues as a secular liberal.

I began to not call myself a feminist aloud except among those (mostly fellow UUs) who knew me well enough to know I wasn’t buying into everything that went under that label. (A lot has been said on this post of a like nature.) The mass of what I wasn’t buying into began to bulk so large I was wondering if I still was a feminist. In a world where a women could define her own feminism, I wondered if a man could do the same.

After I became Pagan in an epiphanal experience of the Goddess I became grounded in the Goddess, confident in defining my own feminism (which now included theological feminism) and closer to balance. But that eighteen-year slog left an invaluable collection of different angles from which to follow discussions like this.

Mainstream or not means nothing about their underlying rightness. George Wallace’s views were pretty mainstream for several hundred years.

Yes but where is the momentum on the issue now vs 40 years ago. The fact that some people hold old beliefs does not mean an issue is truly unsettled or completely up in the air. There are still more than a few people around today who believe the universe is 6,000 years old and was created in six of our solar days. There are still people who believe inter-racial marriage is an abomination before God’s natural order. There will always be contrarian voices on anything, and so much the better, but sooner or later, the arc of history does bend toward justice and refined understanding of things, and most of the world moves on from the holdouts.

Thank you for your feminist viewpoint, Baruch.

The only problem i had with the whole thing was the fact of holding an exclusioinary ritual at a public gathering . and Z’s caustic remarks . IMHO it just isn’t good policy to hold any exclusionary rituals at a large public event , especialy in light of last yrs problems at the same con . I personaly have no problem w/ any Dianic group and what they chose to do on their own time .I would think most in our community feel the same way . Seems to me the best way to handle a situation like this is to only hold all inclusive rituals at public gatherings, this will avoid any further problems . The LGBTQ people are welcome in our community , from what i can see the best route for these people is to start thier own groups where thier specific needs can be catered to . Or to find an open coed group that is all inclusive . Kilm

ATTN KATIE BERGER TREMAINE:

Discus is overwhelmed and cannot connect me to your comment to which I wish to reply. In that comment you asked:

“Do you – does ANYONE here – even understand how horrifying and painful it is to be told point-blank that your body is a horrible thing that can hurt others just by being present?”

Yes. I am a man, and when I was a young man I gave my fealty to the resurgent feminist movement that would change the country. I met a *lot* of feminist women, some of whom had pretty much that attitude toward my body. I believe most were rape survivors. When I joined NOW I was informally challenged, despite the fact that the organization officially welcomed men, to the effect that my presence in the Cleveland chapter would make it impossible for some women to join and get the advantages of a feminist setting, and how was I contributing to make up for that? I replied by explaining the chapter committee work I was doing, and heard no more about it.

I have certainly not felt the depth of your pain, but I can and do empathize.

Z and her supporters certain can tell me, and the lot of us to “shove it.” But we can and will do the same for public events that want to underwrite her bigotry on our time and dollar. Nobody cared that Z does her own thing in her own temple or in the woods. They care that she keeps throwing it in our faces at supposedly open events. If she truly wants to do her own thing in private with her own people, let her.

Thank you for your clarification. So you believe “cis woman” and “trans woman” unfairly and inaccurately divides one gender into two camps. Does that mean that you believe there should be no distinction between these two groups — including allowing both admission to Z’s Goddess Spirituality Event and the Michigan Womyn’s Music Festival?

‘Mis-assigned’? Gender can’t be mis-assigned; gender is something one is born with. You are either a man or a woman. That’s it. How you ‘feel’ does not enter the equation and has never entered it. I can ‘feel’ like I was mis-assigned to humanity at birth. Perhaps I’m a squirrel. However rational people can look at me and say ‘no, no he’s not a squirrel’. It is, hands down, something you choose. And that’s fine. Choose whatever the hell makes you happy. But don’t expect people to always agree with you, and get pissy if they don’t.

@Cristina:
> This is actually a reply to Sindarintech,
> because for some reason, I can’t reply
> to his comment (does reply get taken
> away when a thread gets too many
> comments deep? I don’t comment here
> much.).

Yep, pretty much what you said. My blog runs the same comment software, and basically, the blog can be set to allow comment threads only so many comments “deep”; this is usually for aesthetic purposes, as especially deep threads can end up looking incredibly borked-up, especially in a blog format with a sidebar that narrows down the space for comments to post in. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were other reasons for setting comment threading at x-comments deep (there’s a forum software I’m familiar with that will get buggy and cause threads to error out of a particular thread exceeds 1000 posts –something similar is the next most likely reason to set a low thread depth), but the most common reason I see is aesthetic. It can be a pain in the bottom, but you learn to adjust. :-/

> That’s just it, not all opinions are
> “equally valid as anyone elses.” If
> someone believes women are all
> bitches and whores and the vast
> majority of rape cases are just “buyer’s
> remorse,” their opinion is not equally
> valid as anyone else’s — it’s
> misogynistic and stupid. If someone
> believes the earth is flat and was
> created in six days several thousand
> years ago, their opinion is not equally
> valid as every biologist, paleontologist
> or satellite technician in the world –
> it’s wrong.

YES. Thank you! The notion that “every-one’s entitled to their opinion” becomes fallacy when that “opinion” clashes with established fact. It should also be noted that even established facts often take a while (sometimes decades) to be accepted by the common populace. Opinions are great, but they’re even better when they have established fact backing them up.

@The_L1985
> She made it sound almost like there’s
> some Secret Male Conspiracy sending
> in SPIES or something, …

If you’ve ever read Janice Raymond’s The Transexual[sic] Menace (1979), that’s really not too far from what a lot of Second Wave Feminists believe about trans women in women’s spaces. Considering that Zsuzsanna Budapest is one of Raymond’s contemporaries, I really wouldn’t put that sort of thinking past her.

Sarcasm razor sharp. Quite appreciated. Do enlighten me on these decades of work in the field of gender sciences, psychology, etc. However my statement wasn’t rooted in those particular fields so I hardly see your point. Transwomen are NOT women. Period.

[like-like-like-like-like-like-like-....]

Damn, it’s only taking the first hit.

It must be nice to be living in a world where something is simple because you demand that the complexities not trammel your mind.

Please let me know where I would fall on that, as an XXY male. Or those who are XY females (androgen insensitivity, look it up). Or others who have both male and female genitalia.

Katie could you unpack this a bit more: “And reinforces the fact that the exclusion of trans women is wholly based upon erasure.” Thanks!

Trans woman exclusion certainly appears to be predicated upon a belief that we are actually men, or at least can be treated as men whenever convenient to exclude us. Thus, our identities are erased in order to accomodate others’ preconceptions.

So of all of the thousands of complex processes that happen during fetal development, we’re to believe that this one, unlike ALL of the others, is somehow totally immune to mistakes, ever?

Kenaz wrote: “Disagreement does not equal “intentional silencing.” Freedom of speech does not give you the right to a cheering section. If lots of people think your opinion is silly, bigoted and distasteful it could well be that the problem does not lie with lots of people.”

So well said, and a concept rarely understood.

Why does that right stop once they’re in public space? What about other exclusionary workshops at Pcon. The gay men’s circle, for example, or groups strictly for adults where children are not allowed to attend? Following your logic, you wouldn’t be able to bar young children from any public space because it would be discriminatory.

And I believe the conference hotel is actually private property anyway.

This is problematic considering that “transwoman” is a completely self-defined, self-elected term and “biological woman” is generally a criterion backed up by objectively recognized medical and anatomical criteria.

That’s not what she said. Here are her actual words:

“I know you are here for me. I come out to say something to all of you. I am sorry if I have hurt anyone’s feelings. I apologize. I stand for your right of sacred space for the trans community. I stand with my life’s work for the women to have the right to their sacred space equally. I have supported PantheaCon goals for unity and diversity for the 18 years this conference has existed and an opportunity to have everyone express themselves in a safe place. Peace.”

Cissexual woman (“biological” woman is incorrect. I’m a woman and wtf am I made of, silicon?) is a criterion backed up by nothing more than what a doctor said after looking at your genitals at birth.

Guest, answer the question and Kenaz will stop asking it. The repetition of the question is entirely predicated on your refusal to give a clear answer to it.

The opposite of a biological woman is not a trans woman – the opposite of a biological woman is a gynoid.

Thank you, Mr. Filan, for this enlightening contribution. I’m glad that you have taken the time to research my person, as a few more blog hits can’t hurt.

Thank you for this illuminating response, Ruadhan. I still maintain that gender is indeed black and white (with the obvious exception of hermaphrodites), but I’ll have to do some more research. Gratias Maximas.

Kenaz, I’m not just replying to you, as I know you have stridently voiced your objections to Lady Z’s words…what I wish to say does flow from your words.

To perpetuate emotional violence in the furtherance of that “perfect love and perfect trust” heals no one and is not at all perfect. To spread the “trans women are men who want to rape” meme, as Z effectively has, increases irrational fear…which is not healing.

Trans women are constantly triggered, yet it doesn’t seem to matter to some. Some of us who know our history are triggered by its repetition. When I read Z’s words last year, I heard Robin Morgan’s violence against Beth Elliott replayed. I recalled the words of the letter to Olivia Records demanding the removal of Sandy Stone. The words of “The Transsexual Menace” lumping transsexual women with violence against women echoed in my ears. What sister gives a rats’ ass about my. healing.from.this.violence against me?

We bleed from the physical violence against us. Ask Chrissy Lee Polis about when she wanted to use the ladies’ room. I wish we could ask Tyra Hunter about how medical caregivers, just before she died. Angie Zapata was bludgeoned to death just for dating a man.

I am a woman who has physically been assaulted, as well as socially. Repeatedly. Some here would tell me to suck it up. Like a…would.

I have reached out in sisterhood to women who are healing from severe trauma to their womanhood. When they need a tender heart to lend a shoulder to cry on, I have offered both of mine.

I have stepped aside, and will continue to do so, to honor moonblood space, because I have been asked to do so. (I am long since “fully transitioned” as it were, incidentally. But I do not moonbleed.)

Where is the violent man in all of this?

Yet, I will continue approaching the Goddess as one of her DAUGHTERS. Z Budapest is not the Goddess, and she has no right to tell Her to turn me away from Her Love. Or tell me I cannot share it with others.

Guest: consider the difference between “beyond a reasonable doubt” and “preponderance of evidence.” Consider also the term “circumstantial evidence” – and consider that people have gone to the gallows on the basis of circumstantial evidence.

But of course you’re not interested in addressing any of the points raised. You’re just here to hop up and down and repeat “Zey can PROVE NOTHING!!!” and “I object to being called CISGENDERED!!!” in an attempt to draw attention away from Z Budapest’s hate speech.

I think it’s “pure politics” in the sense that “it raises questions we would prefer not to be raised.”

It’s not there, no “intentional silencing” at all; which is why sindarintech has to speak in the vaguest terms she can imagine, because when actual “oppression” doesn’t exist, and one wants others to believe it’s there, then naming specific incidents of oppression will betray the ruse.

And sometimes, that “extra” tissue is from nothing more than the vague non-condition of “ambiguous genetalia”, chromosomally the child could be XX, but the clitoris is disproportionately *huge*, so it gets cut off so that she’ll look “normal” –sometimes that’s exactly what happens.

> I find it quite interesting that Z would choose to use the term
> “Genetic Women Only” when no genetic testing is actually done.

And even if she were to test for “genetic evidence of wombynnehood” or somesuch, chances are good that there would be no shortage of cissexual women who possess some vhrosomal or hormonal variant that’s not quite understood, even though thus far –at 20, 30, 50 years of age– they’ve had a rather typical biological experience of gender.

I do believe that circles can create themselves according to their own desires and needs and that this may be exclusive at times to others but only because the ‘intent’ behind the gathering of that circle, for that ritual, may require it. For Dianic gatherings it seems to me that the concept of Dianic itself is rooted in genetically female only covens because core to these teachings are the blood mysteries and thus the beginning/continuing/cessation of our blood times are what mark us and identify us with the 3 faces of the Goddess. Therefore it is good and right for those who want to be non-exclusive to define themselves as something outside of the Dianic tradition. Anyone can love and worship the Goddess and anyone can identify and have access to the feminine energies that she symbolizes – but not everyone bleeds and so to take away this distinction, when it’s wanted or needed, is to neutralize once again women’s defining power. I am a Priestess, but not Dianic so i have no attachment politically/culturally to this issue. However as a Woman it seems to me that some things need to be taken for what they are and if it doesn,t work for you any longer than create something more to your liking – as this woman did. We each serve where we feel compelled and that is how it should be.

Nicely said!

Z’s views are pretty mainstream feminist.

Ummm, no. 40 years ago NOW and similar organizations considered Z and her ilk to be an embarrassment and a “lavender menace.” Today a significant number of feminists consider her to be an anachronism. Rush Limbaugh et al may consider lesbian separatism and Goddess spirituality (or caricatures thereof) to be representative of “mainstream feminism,” but I don’t know how many feminists would actually agree.

Didn’t know you were a Rush Limbaugh fan. Good luck with that.

> The fact they refuse to try says more about their issues
> than it does about their root trauma. The fact you enable
> their phobia says the same about you. Nothing good.

Yes.

You’d be surprised.

> and I think it is just a smoke-screen for prejudice.

Oh, it absolutely is.

@sindarintech
> And people wonder why I described
> this as a far-left issue?

Because you cannot see past the end of your own nose? Yes, we got that already.

> Since no one seems to have discussed
> this option, it seems like the trigger
> argument is a bit of a dodge for people
> who just do not want to say that they
> never intend to incorporate
> transwomen in their rituals.

While I agree that it’s largely, if not completely a dodge, at the same time, I’m going to allow some benefit-of-doubt and assume that a lot of those playing the trigger card are just taking for granted the assumed sacredness in nude ritual. I’ve also been taking it for granted, but at the same time, I *do* also recognise the trigger card as the smokescreen it is –if only because I understand the physical realities that many, if not most, trans women go though when on HRT (which is basically chemical castration: a very similar formula is used against serial rapists in U$States that sentence serial rapists to chemical castration –oh, and pro tip: the majority of trans women in the porn industry pop a boner pill before a shoot because of the industry demand for “fully functional”). Trans women are not “rapists in women’s clothing”, as those playing the trigger card are quick to portray them as, an on a deep biochemical level (even putting aside neurological), trans women have bodies that function more like cis women’s bodies than like men’s bodies.

> But that right stops once they get
> into public space.

I really disagree with this.

First off, Pantheacon is not “public space” in any definition —it’s rented space, and it’s only open to people who’ve paid to attend Pantheacon. It’s neither publicly owned nor is it open to the public. Calling Pantheacon “public space” displays a gross misunderstanding of both how convention space works and of what “public space” actually is.

Secondly, the adage of “I paid to attend Pantheacon, I should be able to attend every event on the schedule, if I want to” is just kind of nonsense. There are at least a dozen rituals and other events going on at any one time at Pantheacon, and the event rotation is, like, every couple hours; it is physically impossible for attendees to attend every single event at Pantheacon. Pantheacon is also not a unique example of a convention holding events that will only be accessible to a handful of attendees —and far from it; there are media and publishing conventions that hold scheduled events only for women, people of colour, GBLTs, writers, illustrators, and so on. Heck, if memory serves me, even Penguicon has held a few exclusive events that did not have to be ghettoed off in a suite while the “public schedule” was open for everybody.

Lastly, some traditions and mysteries are just only open to certain people, and that criteria is made in all sorts of ways. In the nearly-twenty years of Pantheacon, there has pretty much always been space made for traditions and/or other events with exclusive criteria, because it’s a celebration of the diversity of all those paths under the “pagan” umbrella, not a forced homogeny where everybody is assumed “the same”. Separate space has been part of the path to empowerment for decades, centuries even, and there is room for that at Pantheacon.

And really, Kenaz, it surprises me that you’ve been one of the most vocal people about how cis-women-only/menstrual mysteries are “only acceptable in private”, yet at Pantheacon2012, there was an African diaspora ritual held in one of the convention rooms, that barred participation to anyone bleeding (which, as noted, included menstruating women). Yeah, they allowed those wearing band-aids to observe from the sidelines, but what about those who really wanted to participate?

There is room for all sorts of rituals at Pantheacon, and no, it doesn’t sully the message of Diversity to have a handful of events that, due to the nature of the hosted paths, have to remain exclusive. Just cos I live in a diverse neighbourhood doesn’t mean my neighbour can let his dog crap in my garden, nor does it mean my neighbour can just invite himself into my house when I’m having a party. Diversity means everybody gets their due dignity, and with that, it means every group has the freedom to define themself and be respected. By this, yes, Zsuzsanna Budapest’s presence at Pantheacon in specific was an antithesis to the message of diversity, but that doesn’t mean that menstrual rites as a whole were.

That’s what they call a politicians apology.

The jury is no longer out. Per Z.’s personal facebook, two hours ago:

Zsuzsanna Budapest The venom directed at me for this outweighs the one line that i wrote last year and half ago. I have apologized, even thou the line was true. It could have been said with less bluntness.

So what kind of apology was it if she still thinks it true that transexuals are merely men trying to invade the space of so-called “real” women/ I used to regard her highly myself but she showed me what a bigot she is. I’m glad she’s now showing the rest of the world.

Guest: On the contrary. The blog comment in question IS attributed – it’s attributed to Z Budapest. That attribution has been backed up by a WHOIS lookup.

Ruadhan: I really should have been more clear about this. My apologies.

First of all, I have no objection to public “women only” or “men only” rituals at Pantheacon or anywhere else – provided they are open to people who identify as women or as men. I think it’s obvious that a significant number of people attending the conference found the exclusion of trans people to be marginalizing and hurtful, and felt that putting such an event on the calendar was a slap in their collective faces – especially since the person holding this ritual had gone on record the year before with a particularly nasty rant about “transies.”

I would have no objection to a “moon blood ritual” which was open only to women who had experienced menstruation, or to a “mother’s ritual” open only to women who had given birth. I do object to a ritual which is open to “all women except trans women.”

Getting back to what I said to our anonymous “Guest,” this gets down to the issue of protected classes. The fact that it’s OK to have a ritual which excludes those under 18 or those who are not gay does not mean it’s OK to have a ritual which excludes people of color or trans people: a “men’s ritual” is fine but a “white men’s only ritual” not so much. And for purposes of anti-discrimination ordinances, I strongly suspect Pantheacon would be considered a “public event” by the applicable authorities – and an event which was open to all cis-women might well be problematic in a city like San Jose where gender identity is a protected class.

Actually, if you’ve ever tasted menstrual fluid, you’d know it’s not “blood” —but hey, I just have an anatomy book confirming this.

But I ask you: What about AAB women who simply never menstruated? AIS, Turner syndrome, even certain hormonal conditions that have naught to do with “chromosomes” have led to all sorts of women who never have and never will menstruate. It’s great that you get some spiritual value out of menstrual mysteries, but to say that’s the end-all/be-all of being a woman is to grossly oversimplify things.

@Kenaz Filan
> I would have no objection to a “moon
> blood ritual” which was open only to
> women who had experienced
> menstruation, or to a “mother’s ritual”
> open only to women who had given
> birth. I do object to a ritual which is
> open to “all women except trans
> women.”

And that’s fine, that’s all I’ve been railing against, myself, but the way you keep reiterating that Ms Busapest’s ritual should have been ghettoed off to a suite is problematic, especially amongst going-on-four weeks’ worth of commentary —comments I really hope are only from cis, white, heterosexual, middle class men who’ve never actually attended Pantheacon— whinging on about “I paid for this, I should be able to attend every event on the schedule”, it really doesn’t look good without this sort of clarification.

As to whether or not this sort of thing falls under San Jose’s “protected class” jurisdiction, that’s a great question, and I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have this perverse glee at the hypothetical court case that could be brought up over this, but back in the Real World, I don’t think it would qualify simply because of the status of rented space that, for the time rented, would not be open to the public.

A restaurant, which is ostensibly open to the public, meaning any-one can come in, peruse the menu, order something and expect to be treated with a minimum of dignity would have to obey those “protected class” statutes, no doubt. Their only way around it, in most other places that have such statutes, would be for the restaurant to operate as a “club”, where members pay regular dues and such, and the owner of the club can have whatever membership criteria they want. A convention would probably fall under those same exceptions, so it’s far more likely that such a case would get thrown out of court.

From Z’s Facebook page:

Zsuzsanna Budapest The venom directed at me for this outweighs the one line that i wrote last year and half ago. I have apologized, even thou the line was true. It could have been said with less bluntness.

I think you’d all fall under “Fabulous People”, should you so choose.

(Also, I realise this comment of mine might give off a “chaser vibe”, and if so, I apologise; my intent is to be light-hearted and IS-supportive, and if that doesn’t come across as such, I can accept that and work on it for the future.)

This was a beautiful and heart-warming comment you shared. Thank you.

That’s not what she said, either. That’s the statement that was prepared for her, but which she did not read. here, this is (at least part of) what she actually said.

That prepared statement doesn’t count as an apology, either. It still attempts to absolve her of any responsibility for her actions, and is the very definition of a fauxpology.

> …if she still thinks it true that transexuals..

I take it you mean “trans/transsexual women”? I’m sure she has an entirely different opinion on trans men, is all I’m saying.

> I was born a female, a woman, a lady.

So were trans women. Just because their neurology doesn’t match what one may assume it should be when looking at their genitals doesn’t make trans women any less born-as women.

The need for words like “cisgender / cissexual” when compared to “transgender” and “transsexual” is pretty much the same for the need for the word “heterosexual” when speaking comparitively of “bisexual” and “homosexual” orientations. It doesn’t make you any less of a woman to have a word to define your kind of experience as a woman, it just means that now trans women and cis women can talk about their experiences without one sort of woman being assumed “better and more normal” than the other.

If you still cannot accept that, then that’s your problem to work on.

Exactly.

Could you provide direct links to your quotes?

Makes sense.
Hopefully this resolves the issue for most people.

Fantastic. I am glad that we are seeing some kind of positive resolution on this whole affair.

Except that’s not what this is about.

> and the pro-trans folks have done a great job at
> silencing dissenting opinions.

And yet you still talk.

Even if your paranoid delusion was a real part of the actual goal, then clearly we’re failing.

Either way, you really don’t have just cause to claim any-one is “silencing” you or your ridiculous opinions. As others have said before, free speech doesn’t mean freedom from criticism, especially when the facts are stacked against you. People can refute your nonsense just as much as you can spout it freely.

Except that genitals and secondary sex characteristics are only part of what comprises physiological sex. Studies of the brains of TS/TG people regularly and consistently shows that trans women overwhelmingly have women’s brains and trans men overwhelmingly have men’s brains. This is not a trait easily “altered” by surgery or HRT.

Furthermore, once a trans woman has an orchiectomy, she has less testosterone in her body than most cisgender women.

Oh Ye Gods and little fishes…

…has the woman gone mad?

You can maintain whatever wrong-headed opinions you like, the facts are still stacked against you.

Just for the sake of informing people: The fact that you cannot reply more-directly to people when a thread gets x-posts deep is not a case of DisqUs being “overwhelmed”. My own blogs run DisqUs, and that’s a setting that each blog manager has the liberty to adjust as they see fit, usually for aesthetic purposes, but there are other reasons, I’m sure. Like, on TWH, even at maximum thread-depth on a 4:3 monitor (possibly even a 16:9 monitor, depending on the blog template settings), the option to share my comments on Twitter and Facebook is hidden by the “post reply” button.

In theory, JP-W can change this setting any time he likes, but it’s set as it’s set for whatever reasons he’s decided are necessary. Just figured I’d explain why this happens so that people know.

Meth… it’s a hell of a drug.

It’s the answer you got, sweetie. You don’t have to like it.

> Alas, quite a few women started calling it “silencing” when they
> were simply disagreed with. I suspect a reaction to past authentic
> silencing. Evidently its use in this manner is still with us.

Of this, I haven’t a doubt in my mind.

I dunno, I’ve known meth-heads who make more sense and have more compassion.

I think, reading all of these comments, my brother, who just told me that he thinks he wants to be a woman, would be more welcome in pagan circles than I would (born a woman). I wonder how many people who are throwing a fit over this whole situation would really even want to be in Z’s rituals. Probably none.

There are valid questions about what you call ‘nuance,’ particularly in terms of the particular forms of embodiment: and especially regarding the mystical aspects of all kinds of people: the problem here is that that is not going to happen so well if people keep insisting on reducing it all to binaries, then expecting people and reality to either conform to those binaries or be considered non-men-or-women-who-need-to-be-excluded from the category of ‘real humans’ (of whatever sex) ‘

Within my own lifetime, people would call you ‘Not a real woman’ or ‘not a real man,’ just for not acting straight enough, or for being too smart, or not looking right, or wearing the ‘wrong’ fashions, or not being suitably Christian, or available, or submissive in both ways… even for failing to join in on enforcing all those standards, never mind standing up for them or yourself.

We all have realities of our bodies, souls, and situations… Living embodied spirit. We’re not going to *get* to the ‘nuances,’ never mind the emergent, wondrous, living, diverse, inner and interactive *realities* of them if all we do is argue about who’s ‘in’ or who’s ‘out’ of what binaries.

No, not all people are the same. We shouldn’t have to be. But we won’t find out what that means if we’re just arguing about binary in-groups and then expecting anyone who doesn’t fit to ‘just go away.’

We’re all embodied in varyingly-male-and-female brains and varyingly-male-and-female bodies. By common standards, yes, transwomen are women in assigned-at-birth-male-bodies. At least in most ways, transwomen are women. Also different.

But to be human, they shouldn’t have to be. They aren’t ‘men,’ they aren’t ‘male people’ just because they looked like it, …the ‘genetics’ aren’t even as absolute as some ignorant people say.

Whether it’s from the Christian Right or the second wave ‘feminists’ like Janice Raymond, who allied with Falwell and justified, if not invented the hatespeech that means transwomen can’t pee in Tennessee without risking prosecution, (Bathrooms are the excuse for the fact that transwomen have the worst poverty rates in the nation, you know: they can be fired or evicted simply for being trans in most states in the nation, fully legally, you know, and the Right wants to make this worse with just the same scare tactics.) It’s ‘gender policing. ‘

Cause, really. If *we* let an elder say ‘Transwomen want to show penises, which we imagine as a threat, even if it doesn’t happen,’ …What’s to stop someone else from saying, ‘Let’s have genital screenings of *anyone* on demand? ‘ Is that ‘feminism?’ Demanding grope-checks? Really?

Are we ‘Witches’ or *not?* What do we know about fear, perception, and power? If someone’s going to sour some vibe, shouldn’t that be obvious? And shouldn’t trans human beings be able to recognize that and, yes, know when to stay away if necessary ..Without sacrificing their human dignity in the process?

If the difference is so f’n powerful, why *isn’t* it about that, instead of it being about ‘Man, woman, or nothing?’ (Or worse, ‘Transie,’ )

I think we all have to allow ourselves to *be* trans, cis, straight, queer, *anything,* and when that’s *not* about someone dehumanizing someone, then we’ll all *really* be present and embodied. Maybe even trans people who find the present shape of their embodiment hurts: and I think that’s one of the worst things trans people go through, …the very idea they *aren’t* fully human until surgery, if ever.

All cause of that binary gender essentialism we, as Pagans, have inherited.

We don’t have to embrace those. We can be freakin’ magic. Right?

Baruch, as the one who made the analogy, I wasn’t trying to say that one was more triggering than the other or more prevalent. The only point I was trying to make is that I don’t believe it’s fair for one member to be excluded from a circle entirely based on a physical characteristic beyond their control because of another member’s triggers. I agree that using race was an imperfect analogy, but my point is that both race and genitals are physical characteristics beyond one’s control, so excluding based on either is straightforward discrimination.

Guest: MommaCat described “cis” as being a term that means “less than,” which is 100% inaccurate. Saying so is not rude. MommaCat can call herself whatever she wants and define herself in any way she pleases, but she should not be allowed to perpetuate inaccurate information in the exact way that, frankly, many, many transphobes have done before her.

A+ comment. Wish there were a way to favorite & save it for the next time its brought up!

Point received. I was referring specifically to moonblood rituals, but your point definitely makes sense, and I did not mean to imply that trans blood, however shed, is not a vitally important experience to acknowledge.

How on earth are you continuing to insist that using an accurate scientific term with no history of being used as a slur is the same thing as NAME CALLING, tho?

Biological sex and gender (a social construct) are not the same thing.

Sex can be male, female, or intersex.
Gender can be woman, man, agender, genderqueer, genderfluid.

When one’s sex and gender match, they are cis.
When they do not, they are trans.

When trans people decide they are another species entirely, get back to me. Until then, I’ll over here boggling at your ridiculous leaps in logic.

There is a big difference, though, Baruch.

As a man, you had privilege that the women did not. Transwomen are already a marginalized group, and to discriminate against them because of a factor beyond their control is to make them a marginalized group even within their already marginalized gender.

I appreciate that you have a small sense of what Katie was speaking about, but she’s talking about a completely different paradigm.

I get that, but it seems like it was already going in that direction already after the lack of clarity in 2011. I don’t really think it says much more than that, frankly. I addressed this in the new wild hunt blog post just up. From the way it reads to me, you can still do a “genetic women only” event so long as you’re clear in the language. I expect this controversy isn’t over yet.

> If you didn’t just make that sibling up to make a point, it’s time to
> remember what Wicca’s *really* about and find the spirit in living
> reality.

I’m not a Wiccan, but if I recall correctly, the answer to that question of “what’s Wicca ‘really’ about” will differ between Traditional and Popular Wicca, and probably differ between different traditions and especially between different Popular-forms.

I saw that, too. I figured it was their way of saying either one of two things:

1) Blanket descriptives of “men only” or “women only” have to allow everybody who identifies as such, but any further restrictions beyond that have to be worded in inoffensive language.

or

2) Further restricted-access rituals beyond simply “men only” and “women only” have to take it to a private suite.

Honestly, because of that paragraph you quote, I’m still not certain, but I think (hope) they mean the latter.

LOL. Read all these discussion threads!

Christina, I see how you use it, for one.

You know how the term “cissexual” came about? The people who it described didn’t bother to come up with an alternative term that didn’t come out to “we are normal, you are weird and unnatural.” So just like “heterosexual” and “white,” the oppressed minority had to come up with a complementary term for the privileged majority, who naturally complained that they were being “dragged down” – openly admitting that they saw those they opposed as subhuman. So I’m sorry, but your concern trolling is noted in the proper place that it should be noted.

I DO bleed, and that’s why I don’t understand your point.

Most Neopagan religions are based on ancient practices, which were often rooted in fertility rites. Fertility requires BOTH sexes. In addition, gay and transgender people were often elevated in early societies, especially compared to the horrible treatment

When people from all Paths and walks of life (hence the “public” thing–this wasn’t a Dianic-only gathering) are PAYING for something, they generally don’t expect to be treated differently by a usually-accepting Pagan community because some of them are transgender.

Transgender people DO bleed, and not in the benign monthly way. People are raped and killed, all the time, just for being transgender. These people deserve better than that from us.

Also…I have PMDD. “Celebrating” something that, untreated, leaves me bedridden on a monthly basis seems quite absurd to me. Just saying.

If you think it’s insulting to be placed on the same level as a trans person, the one who needs to change their mind is you and not me.

The_L1985
Yeah, this is more like a joke that if someone didn’t laugh they got it spammed at them 100 times more in punishment, told how “Why don’t you like it?” and got lectured about how it was a “good” joke, and how they wanted to call you that joke

Katie, You have a lot of nerve trying to tell other people what they are in terms of gender and call them things they don’t like, after you’ve made it obvious you find it offensive when they do that to you. And yet that’s what you want to do to other people.
The “golden rule” – look it up.

I don’t think that “regularly and consistently” is correct: a recent MRI study in *Cerebral Cortex*, November 2011 (http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/21/11/2525.abstract) showed that the gynephilic transwomen studied had brains more similar to the heterosexual cismen than the heterosexual ciswomen in the study group. The full text of the paper cites at least one additional study with corroborating results. Some physical examinations of postmortem brains *do* suggest that transfolk have some physical structures in their brains that correspond with their self-perceived gender rather than with their genetic sex. This is clearly a complex issue physiologically.

Since s/h/it can no longer troll with the “we can’t PROVE that Z Budapest posted that comment” thanks to Z’s admission on her Facebook page, s/h/it has to come up with new material. You’ll note that s/h/it refuses to be clear as to why it is that “cis-” is insulting, just as s/h/it refused to offer alternative explanations as to the origins of that post.

And when your only supporters are a guy who thinks all trans people are schizophrenics and should be ignored along with any evidence to the contrary and a guy who’s a self-proclaimed fascist/Nazi sympathizer, you have to troll really hard to keep everyone else from realizing that. Too bad for s/h/it that everyone already HAS realized it

“Guest” is working hard to distract attention from Z’s hateful speech (although that will be more difficult now that Z has admitted to posting that “transies” comment on her Facebook page). To that end we’re seeing all kinds of flouncing about how offensive “cis-” is without any specifics about why it’s insulting or why we should care about some anonymous troll’s feelings. I predict we’ll see a new argument soon: the intent isn’t to start conversation but to stop us from pointing at Fearless Leader’s missteps.

Deep frustration at continued, insistent misgendering does not count as “throwing a fit.”

I see a lot of attacking the messenger, but not the message.
Typically when I’ve been attacked in this thread, it’s someone claiming I’d meant something when I meant nothing of the kind.

ATTN CHRISTINA:

I acknowledge the profound differences you sketch. Katie asked a deep question, and I provided an answer out of my experience.

> Too bad for s/h/it that everyone already HAS realized it

I’m not so sure about that; my Inbox hints that there’s at least one or two people still throwing scraps under the bridge.

> s/h/it

heh ;-D

Even if it is a case of the former [1) Blanket descriptives of "men only" or "women only" have to allow everybody who identifies as such, but any further restrictions beyond that have to be worded in inoffensive language], personally, I have no problem, as long as the trans women most likely to be excluded* agree that the language used is inoffensive.

*I point this out because of two reason: 1) trans women are more likely than trans men to be excluded from anything, for reasons that never seemed especially clear to me, and 2) the most reasonable exclude for an event at Pantheacon to exclude trans women is only menstrual mystery related rit.

Guest: oh my various gods.

I use “cis” to mean “person whose biological sex matches their gender.”

That is NOT a frakking slur, JFC.

WTH is up with you, Christina,
You at least allow for “genderqueer”, which is ironic considering you defend “cis” and “trans” which says that there’s just two variations. But then you take that away by suggesting you can decode for other people their identity, (which is a lot of why some are mad at Z.)
If you’re so enamored of prefixes, perhaps some other terms could be
“meso”, “hemi”, “ignota” “ambo”, “vacare”, “duo”, and a suffix for neutrality “-um”.. hard for me to say since I don’t speak Latin. And I don’t find those lovely either, and I wouldn’t try calling people them who haven’t identified themselves and didn’t want to be called them, because that’s rude.
So Whatever.