Category Archives: Sexism

Discrimination against women

LGBTQIA, Photography, Racism, Sexism, Speciesism, Veganism

Saryta Rodriguez: Until Every Animal Is Free

8 Comments

[Image: Left: Saryta at Souley Vegan restaurant, standing in front of a poster of Louis Armstrong while holding her book, Until Every Animal is Free. Right: Saryta pets Brahma, a bull at PreetiRang Sanctuary.]

Black and white headshot of Saryta, by Sophie Jane Stafford.[Image: Black and white headshot of Saryta, by Sophie Jane Stafford.]

Recently I had the pleasure of reading a wonderful book about animal liberation, Until Every Animal Is Free, written by my friend Saryta Rodriguez. Saryta and I met when we were both active with Direct Action Everywhere (though neither of us is currently) and their affinity group, Animal Liberationists of Color. During that time, she edited the three blog posts I wrote for The Liberationist.

Through both personal stories and well-cited research, Saryta’s book makes a solid case for veganism and animal rights activism. While I needed no convincing on those fronts, I learned new facts and perspectives that will be helpful in my own activist work. Her web site contains additional helpful resources and information that didn’t make it into the book.

I asked Saryta if I could send her some interview questions over e-mail, focusing on topics that were not directly covered in her book. For example, Saryta is agender; like me, she doesn’t associate that identity with a stereotypical “androgynous” gender expression. Saryta answered my questions with great enthusiasm; I’ve included her full responses below, interspersed with photos from our recent visit (along with my partner Ziggy) to PreetiRang Sanctuary. (The full set of photos is available on Flickr.)

As a fellow agender person, does having a non-binary gender identity give you any insights into the human/non-human binary that is often used to justify the exploitation of animals?

Ever since I was a child, long before I understood my gender identity and even longer before I went vegan, I always thought it was strange for us to draw such a divide between humans and nonhumans. I’ve often been accused of being overly literal— of zeroing in on the slightest nuance of a given word or phrase, of insisting on precision in language and communication. (My partner finds this very annoying.) I remember learning when I was maybe eight or nine years old of the classical scientific kingdoms: Animalia, Plantae, Fungi, Protista, Archaea and Bacteria. Humans, like pigs, cows, and chickens, exist squarely in the Animalia kingdom. We do not have our own kingdom. Period.

So in a very literal sense, leaving aside the spiritual and the emotional for a moment, humans are animals. To me, it really is that simple.

Geeta and Ziggy at PreetiRang Sanctuary[Image: Close-up of Ziggy smiling at Geeta, a goat at PreetiRang Sanctuary.]

With respect to binary systems in general, I feel that they are all alike in that they serve to otherize those who are in some way deviant from the norm, so as to make their exploitation more palatable. One thing I also remember learning around 8 or 9 years of age is that “Women have XX chromosomes” and “Men have XY chromosomes.” This was how sex, with which many conflate gender, was first defined to me. Two options—XX or XY. Nothing in between.

I later learned, of course, that this is far from the case. For starters, many individuals have genetic makeups that are neither XX nor XY. Furthermore, even among those with XX or XY, there are other differences that affect their sex and in some cases, their gender identity. Exposure to hormones such as androgen in the womb is one example, but there are others. Even with respect to genitalia, to summarize that “Men have penises” and “Women have vaginas” is misleading, because it suggests that every human being on the planet was born with either a penis or a vagina, when some are born with parts of both.

I do see a clear parallel between this and the many ways in which humans otherize nonhumans— everything from “We have thumbs and they don’t,” which is immediately disproven by nonhuman primates, to “We have art and culture and all these high-brow elements to our society that nonhumans don’t,” which is challenged by the bowerbird, among others.

(The males in this species erect bowers, not to live in or for any other practical purpose, but strictly to appeal to the aesthetic sense of females. Possession of an aesthetic sense— the ability to discern between what is “beautiful” and what is “ugly”— has long been heralded as a distinctly human characteristic.)

Bertha at PreetiRang Sanctuary[Image: Bertha, a colorful rooster at PreetiRang Sanctuary. White hens are in the background.]

Ultimately, such distinctions serve the purpose of legitimizing violence and exploitation, as if we can convince ourselves that someone is “not like us” in ways that we find meaningful— such as our cognitive abilities and our abilities to experience pain and fear—then we needn’t concern ourselves with their wellbeing in the same manner as we concern ourselves with our own wellbeing. We can tell ourselves that the suffering we cause others is not really suffering, because no one else is capable of truly suffering— because that is unique to us.

While the connection to violence and exploitation may not seem immediately apparent between nonhuman animals and agendered persons (I admit I have been very fortunate to have never faced either due to my gender identity), a more obvious connection perhaps is with respect to invisibility. Just as many contend that the perspective of nonhumans need not be considered because they don’t exist precisely as we do, so too are agendered individuals often told— either directly (by an individual in our lives) or systemically (by the media, our employers, and so forth)— that we “do not exist.” That there’s “no such thing” as the very thing that we are. This I have been told, many times, as well as when I first admitted to a friend that I was pansexual. She insisted that I was either a straight person going through a phase or a lesbian in denial. She was incapable of acknowledging any in-between, and while at the time I felt differently, today I can hardly blame her. I’m probably the first and may still be the only pansexual she’s ever met, and this wasn’t something people talked about back then, like they do now. When I was in high school kids rarely even came out as gay or lesbian, and no one that I’m aware of ever came out as anything else.

By rendering members of our society invisible, be they outside of the gender binary or simply one of the many forms of animal that is not human, we do them and ourselves a disservice. We not only commit injustice upon injustice against them, but we also shortchange ourselves from the benefit of their experiences. We miss out on an opportunity to learn from those with whom we share the planet. We stunt our own evolutionary development— remain mired in archaic modes of thinking and acting.

As a pansexual person, have you experienced or witnessed heterosexist oppression or micro-aggressions from other animal rights activists?

Have I ever! Although I have to say, I have more experience witnessing sexism more generally— cis-male domination— than heterosexism specifically, which I understand to refer to domination by straight people. But one form of microaggression I have witnessed as a pansexual, agender person of color over and over again is tokenization. I have seen, over and over again, animal rights organizations herald this or that activist as a tremendous asset to their work…When it’s convenient to do so. But should the same activist voice concern that racism, sexism, heterosexism or any other nasty –ism is slowly infecting the network, that activist is hung out to dry. If not kicked out directly, they may be given fewer tasks to complete. They may find that initiatives they spearheaded— including ones they conceived of themselves, without which they would not be happening at all— are handed over, without any explanation, to someone who in some way better fits societal norms (i.e. taking something from a POC and giving it to a white person, taking something from an agender person and giving it to a man or a woman). They are featured less and less in videos, blogs or other forms of media after speaking up about these behaviors.

Saryta and Chester at PreetiRang Sanctuary[Image: Saryta feeds carrots to Chester, a bull at PreetiRang Sanctuary.]

A common response in AR circles to problems of this type can be summed up as: “Animals, though.” This is the notion that we vegans must promptly sweep aside any issue that might sow division in our ranks— including various oppressions that affect humans— in order to keep fighting the good fight for our nonhuman brethren. This is not only unjust towards human activists but also ultimately hurts nonhuman animals as people outside of the movement peek in and think, “Wow, AR folk have some serious issues; I wouldn’t want to touch that with a ten-foot pole!”

Imagine how a person of color who is thinking about going vegan feels when they hear that some of the most outspoken, well-known animal rights groups in the country have developed a reputation for ignoring the concerns of their POC members, and/or have unapologetically run campaigns that are culturally insensitive. How likely are they to make this oh-so-difficult lifelong commitment when they suspect that this will be the company they’re keeping?

Have you felt pressure to hide or downplay your gender identity or sexual orientation when doing activism?

Only as much as I do in any other setting (haha). The truth is I don’t know if it’s fair to say I felt pressured, as this implies that the pressure was coming from outside of myself— like I was afraid something bad would happen to me if I mentioned who I was. It’s really more like, I pressure myself to avoid talking about myself when I do activism (and in most other scenarios, interviews obviously notwithstanding), and keep the focus on the issue I’m trying to address. I don’t want to get roped into conversations about myself when I’m trying to shed light on the oppression of someone else. I only really talk about being agender when involved in some sort of gender-related activism, and I don’t do as much of that as I should.

With respect to my sexuality, I only ever tell people who ask. This might be a result of what happened that first time I told someone about it, and perhaps that is society’s stigma leaking into my consciousness— a latent fear of being told yet again that I “do not exist,” that there’s “no such thing” as me. But moreso than any subconscious wounds I may be hauling around, I think at bottom, the whole notion that anyone should have to “come out” to anyone else as anything sexual is offensive. Straight men, for instance, are never expected to sit down with their parents and say, “Mom, Dad, I think I’m going to have sex with women for the rest of my life.” So why should a gay man have to declare to his parents that he will sleep with men, and why should I have to tell my parents that I sleep with folks independent of their gender? It’s just none of their business. If either of them were to ever ask me, I’d tell them the truth; but, knowing my parents, I sincerely doubt that will ever happen.

As a person who has also dealt with serious depression, how do you balance activism with self-care?

It took me a long time to get the hang of this, and I still struggle with it from time to time. One thing I’ve come to accept and embrace about myself is that the form or style of activism that comes most naturally to me is writing— which, luckily for me, can be done from the comfort of my own home. I do occasionally force myself to step outside of the box, but now I’m more careful than I used to be about over-committing, and I’m always honest with the people I work with about what my availability is. I’ve come to see “self-care” as being “unavailable,” whereas before it seemed selfish to turn down an opportunity to change minds and save lives to read a book or watch TV. I know that I am only human, and my brain and body need time to rest. So I now put “needing time to rest (mentally, physically and/or emotionally)” in the same category as I always have “having another commitment at that time” or “being really, really sick.” I’ve learned to say so, too; I used to be too embarrassed to admit when I had these needs, and would use those other examples— prior commitment, illness— as excuses when they weren’t really true. I’ve always felt guilty about that, being patently and unequivocally anti-lying. I’d lie awake at night, tossing and turning, wracked with guilt over having told someone I had the flu when really I was just exhausted, or had had a big fight with a lover or relative and was too sad to go anywhere.

I also firmly believe that part of being a good social justice advocate, whatever your cause or causes of choice may be, is being well-rounded and having a broad understanding of society. This means keeping up with things like theater, visual art, movies and, yes, even TV. You can’t expect to reach people if you exist in a vacuum, surrounding yourself only with people exactly like you, who behave as you do and think as you do already. You won’t make any significant changes that way. So I’ve come to appreciate that even when I’m doing things that might appear selfish or insignificant, like going to see a musical, it still has the potential to positively inform my activism. Often, much to my surprise, I’ve even found my causes of choice represented directly in the play or musical or movie I’ve gone to see, and it has inspired me directly to write or talk about the issue, rather than just passively informing my understanding of humanity.

Chester at PreetiRang Sanctuary[Image: Chester, a bull at PreetiRang Sanctuary.]

Finally, I’ve learned not to draw a connection between my position within a particular group or organization and my sense of self-worth. As a kid, I was super competitive. I got ridiculously good grades, so much so that once, I’m embarrassed to admit, I actually cried because I got a 98 on a test on which I thought I’d received 100. I was also a concert violinist, and even though I got a later start than the other kids in my orchestra (most of them started around age four; I didn’t start until I was ten), and despite not having my own private instructor (as many of the others did; I had one for a couple of weeks, but couldn’t afford to keep seeing her), I quickly rose to first chair. Throughout middle school and high school, I only lost that position once— when I had the flu on Audition Day. (You really don’t want to know how hard I cried when that happened.) So for a long time I associated my worth with how highly I appeared to be valued by whatever institution I was a part of at that time. If the institution didn’t value me, didn’t praise me, didn’t award me anything, then I must be a failure, a nobody.

I can’t tell you what a tremendous relief it has been to me to no longer live under such strain— to be able to objectively evaluate my own individual actions, achievements, talents, etc., without formal acknowledgement from any institution or individual.

As a Hispanic person, are there any misconceptions about your ethnicity that you’d particularly like to dispel?

Well, I guess there’s one that’s actually so widespread that, even as a Hispanic myself, I believed it until just a couple of years ago— the notion that all Hispanic people eat tons of meat. While my own family is very carnivorous, and I ate an absurd amount of meat growing up, this is not universally true of the Hispanic and/or Latinx communities. My friend Chema Hernandez Gil gave a great talk at the premiere People’s Harvest Forum in San Francisco, which I helped to organize with Millahcayotl, about how his family in Mexico ate a vegetarian diet throughout his youth (the Seventies, I believe). I have also learned more through him and others about the Three Sisters Diet— squash, corn, and beans— and how even gluten, which I thought people avoided mostly for health reasons, is actually a result of imperialism, as Mexico and other countries used primarily corn to make tortillas and other bread-like products until white settlers brought wheat over from Europe. Not to get too sidetracked here, but I was surprised to learn that there were ethical or political reasons not to eat gluten, in addition to health reasons like Celiac Disease.

So to think that Hispanic people just won’t ever go vegan really doesn’t make any sense. If Americans, who consume on average about 270 lbs. of meat per year— more meat per person than almost any other country in the world— can still be persuaded to go vegan, so can Hispanic people. And beyond merely going vegan, there are even organizations run by Hispanic and Latinx people promoting veganism, providing resources for everything from “Why Vegan?” to tips on vegan Mexican cooking, such as Food Empowerment Project. So my people do not merely form a minority of members within the Animal Liberation Movement— some of them are leading it.

On your web site you’ve posted a bonus chapter and other essays since the publication of your book. Are there any other recent developments or upcoming projects you’d like to talk about?

Yes, I’d be happy to! So aside from still trying to conceptualize and book events around my first book, I’ve also started a second, which will be a compilation of essays regarding food sovereignty, through a vegan praxis. I can’t share too much about it now except that I’ve got some really great contributors on board already (and I’m hoping you, Pax, can be counted among them!), and that to the best of my knowledge nothing quite like this has been done yet. I’ve enjoyed working on my contributions so far and am really excited to gather the perspectives and insights of the many talented people who have agreed to work with me on this. I expect to learn a lot!

Saryta, Pax, and Brahma at PreetiRang Sanctuary[Image: Saryta and Pax pet Brahma, a bull at PreetiRang Sanctuary. Photo by Ziggy.]

LGBTQIA, Photography, Racism, Sexism

Wikipedia 15

4 Comments

[Image: Lila Tretikov, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation, speaks into a microphone in front of a screen displaying the words “Share. Inspire.”]

This January 15 marked the 15th birthday of Wikipedia, one of the most popular web sites on the Internet. I’ve been a volunteer editor on that site for over seven years, and have been increasingly active lately, especially on the LGBT Studies project. I’ve also donated a small amount of money to their annual fundraising drive in recent years, as I read Wikipedia pages on a daily basis. So when I saw a banner on my list of watched pages announcing a birthday celebration here in San Francisco, I signed up to attend.

Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight at Wikipedia 15[Image: Event emcee Rosie Stephenson-Goodknight, presenting on the content gender gap, holds a microphone while standing in front of a laptop.]

One of the presentations was on the “content gender gap“: The lack of Wikipedia articles on women and issues of concern to them. I’ve been dealing with similar frustrations regarding accurate coverage of trans people and non-binary gender identities, as non-binary erasure* is a significant concern of mine. One of the presenters, Emily Temple-Wood, mentioned that coverage of trans health issues on Wikipedia is a disaster, which I agree with.

Britta Gustafson and Stuart Geiger at Wikipedia 15[Image: Britta Gustafson and Stuart Geiger share a laugh while presenting in front of a projection screen.]

The event had more lighthearted moments, including a nostalgic and humorous look at the early days of Wikipedia, 2001-2003. While I wasn’t an editor on Wikipedia at that time, I’ve been active on the Internet since the days of Gopher and I launched my first web site in 1994, so I could appreciate the humor.

Panel of speakers at Wikipedia 15[Image: Five panelists sit on chairs; one speaks into a microphone.]

Uncle Bobby at Wikipedia 15[Image: Cephus “Uncle Bobby” Johnson speaks into a microphone.]

The event concluded with a panel of speakers, moderated by Pete Forsyth, discussing the impact of 15 years of Wikipedia. As I mentioned in yesterday’s post about the MLK march, one of the panelists was Cephus “Uncle Bobby” Johnson, uncle of Oscar Grant, who was killed by the BART police in 2009. He urged Wikipedia editors to consider the impact of their words on people reading their articles, as while reading the article about his nephew, he felt like Oscar was murdered all over again.

I spoke with Uncle Bobby after the event, and shared my frustrations on dealing with cisgender editors who don’t understand how to write about trans people accurately, which I felt was analogous to white editors dominating coverage of events concerning anti-black racism. I explained that Wikipedia’s policy of requiring reliable sources to be cited is in place for good reasons, but has the effect of shutting out marginalized people who don’t have equal access to be featured in such publications.

Our lived experiences often do not reflect what is published in mainstream sources, but lived experience is considered “original research”, and not allowed on Wikipedia. Again, there are good reasons for this policy, but it makes it harder to convey our truths when we share our own experiences and are accused of having an “agenda”. Wikipedia requires editors to write from a neutral point of view, but in the USA, what is currently considered “neutral” is unavoidably skewed toward a white, male, heterosexual, cisgender perspective.

Attending this event made me want to learn more about the inner workings of Wikipedia, which led me to several articles in the most recent Signpost that expressed serious concerns about the Wikimedia Foundation. I’ll be keeping a closer eye on these developments. Despite the flaws, I find Wikipedia to be an invaluable resource, and am glad I have the time and ability to help make it better.

I’ve posted my full set of photos from Wikipedia 15 to Flickr, as well as to the Wikimedia Commons (the commons gallery contains photos and videos from other attendees as well).

* As noted in my year-end gender post, I was pleased that after I sent feedback, both the MTV account creation page and the most recent Wikipedia annual survey added an “Other” option to their gender question.

Sexism

Children and consent

9 Comments

[Image: The author at age 10, wearing a one-piece bathing suit and lying on a beach.]

Content warning: Rape and explicit details of sexual abuse.

After posting yesterday’s blog entry, I edited it to add a brief mention of David Bowie’s death. I did so because of his gender presentation, not because I’m a fan, though I have enjoyed some of his music; here’s a (pre-transition) video of me playing bass on an amateur performance of Moonage Daydream.

As touched on in the blog post I linked to, Bowie’s legacy is controversial; the author suggested reading a great piece called “How to be a fan of problematic things.” The problematic thing that’s the focus of my post today is Bowie’s encounter with a 13-year-old* girl, which, depending on who you ask, was either consensual sex or rape.

As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I have strong feelings on this subject. (Please read my post on victims and survivors, which also discusses some details of what I experienced, if you’re tempted to criticize my choice of terms or accuse me of “playing the victim.”) My opinion is that in modern Western civilization – and I’m including Bowie’s entire lifespan in this definition of “modern” – a thirteen-year-old is a child, and a child cannot consent to having sex with an adult. A child is not capable of making adult decisions.

My sexual abuse occurred before that age. I did not consent – enthusiastically or otherwise – but I did not resist, either. I was annoyed by my abuser repeatedly waking me in the middle of the night, exposing himself, and putting my hand on his genitals. But I did not cry out or tell him to stop. I was a child. He was an adult member of my extended family. I did not know this was wrong.

The one time I did cry out was when – in the middle of the day, with no one else around – he lifted me in his arms to carry me into the bedroom. He quickly reassured me that he “wouldn’t hurt me for the world.” I believed him. I was a child. I did not know any better.

By the time I reached the age of Bowie’s victim, I had told another family member about the abuse, and was no longer allowed to be alone with my abuser. I was encouraged to get therapy. But I did not want to talk to a therapist about that subject, because I had a lot of other problems that I thought were more pressing, and did not want all my sessions to focus on something I didn’t consider important. My refusal to take the abuse seriously was later thrown back in my face as an adult, when I experienced delayed trauma from what happened to me. But at the time I resisted the therapy, I was a child. I did not know any better.

Even more importantly, my abuser never faced any consequences. At the very least, he should have been required to publicly admit that he sexually molested a child, and have mandatory reparative therapy to decrease the chances of him hurting others. But he – an educated, financially comfortable, successful white man –  was considered a “good person,” independent of what he did to me, and went to his grave without accounting for his actions (other than a half-hearted “sorry if I bothered you” excuse he made to me as a teen, which I accepted, because again, I was a child).

When I call for public accountability, it really angers me to know that people are often more concerned about an abuser’s life or reputation being ruined than about the well-being of their victim. I seek justice and prevention of further abuse, not revenge. But I don’t need to express sympathy for abusers or oppressors, no matter how many others consider them to be “good people.”

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: I don’t believe people are good or evil. We are all flawed. Each of our individual acts has the potential to cause more or less harm, and ignoring harmful acts just because a person also did beneficial acts is inexcusable. I don’t care if someone sells a million record albums or discovers a cure for cancer; if they harm a child, they need to be held accountable for it.

I also don’t believe in unconditional love. With the possible exceptions of therapists and spiritual advisors, telling a victim to love their abuser is itself an abusive act. I say “possible” exception because advisors are still humans, and some of them have been known to take advantage of vulnerable people in their charge. Regardless, the only person who can forgive an abuser – or oppressor –  is the person who was abused. No one else.

I’m posting this not to seek sympathy or advice. I specifically and emphatically do not want to hear from anyone in my immediate birth family in response to this essay (or in any other form). I simply want adults to stop taking advantage of children, no matter what the social circumstances are. We need to dismantle rape culture with honesty and transparency.

* Addendum: I’ve seen various articles state that the girl was 14 or 15, not 13. My opinion stands regardless.

Cissexism, Heterosexism, LGBTQIA, Sexism, Trans

Men in skirts

4 Comments

[Image: Ziggy reclines on a sculpture in a park, wearing a purple shirt and blue -and-purple tie-dyed skirt. The Seattle skyline is in the background.]

There’s a great piece in Black Girl Dangerous today about femme clothing, gender expression and identity. In their article, non-binary femme author Jack Qu’emi Gutiérrez talks about Jaden Smith’s appearance in a womenswear campaign making the news, and explains that unless he states otherwise, Jaden is still a young cisgender man. He should be celebrated for showing that it’s OK for men – especially black men – to express femininity, but he’s not a “non-binary icon,” and he’s not mocking or taking anything away from trans people.

I’ve posted about this subject before, and agree with the author’s assessment. People of all genders – as well as agender people like myself – should be free to present themselves in whatever way feels comfortable and appropriate for them, without being hemmed in by binary gender assumptions. A male-assigned person wearing a skirt is not necessarily making a statement about their gender identity or sexual orientation. It is only because of our patriarchal society that casts masculinity and heterosexuality as the default that a man wearing a skirt is a more transgressive act than a woman wearing pants.

When I met my partner Ziggy, pictured at the top of this post, we were in those roles; I was living (pre-transition) as a woman, fairly ignorant about gender issues, who strongly preferred wearing pants, and he was living as a man who strongly preferred wearing skirts. I’ll admit that his skirt-wearing really bothered me at first, as I was prejudiced against femme presentations. But love conquers all, as they say, and soon his clothing was no more remarkable to me than any other man’s, even though I hardly ever saw another man wearing a skirt (even in the San Francisco Bay Area).

I’ve since transitioned to male, and Ziggy now identifies as genderqueer but cissexual; he has no desire to go through a physical gender transition. Our subconscious sexes are both male, independent of the clothes we wear or the pronouns we prefer (Ziggy still uses he/him/his; I prefer they/them/their for myself).

While Ziggy has been fortunate not to experience much harassment for his clothing choices, others have not been so lucky. Agender teen Sasha Fleischman had their skirt set on fire by another teenager who thought Sasha was a gay man. Other trans and non-binary people have told stories of what they wanted to wear but did not for fear of violence.

If anyone can wear skirts, what are the implications for male-assigned, femme-presenting people who actually are women? Trans women get the worst of gender policing; if they present as femme, they’re accused of parodying women, but if they present as masculine or androgynous (which in our patriarchal society is basically masculine), they are seen as men and treated accordingly.

My advice is to always assume that an individual knows their own gender better than you do. In other words, if someone is walking into a women’s restroom, assume that they belong there. If you misgender someone and they correct you, apologize and move on. Use gender-neutral language whenever possible. And stop using biological essentialism to justify bigotry.

Skirts are just fabric. Clothing has no gender. Celebrate diversity.

Addendum: Just after publishing this article, I read about the death of David Bowie, another gender “transgressor”. Check out this article by another non-binary blogger on Bowie’s legacy.

Ableism, Cissexism, Heterosexism, Racism, Sexism, Speciesism

Downplaying human oppression: Excuses and responses

3 Comments

I’ve written frequently in this blog about the necessity for vegans and animal rights activists to pay attention to human oppression, including (but not limited to) racism, sexism, heterosexism, cissexism, classism, and ableism. Unfortunately, whenever the topic of intersectionality* is raised, some activists fire back with excuses. I’ve collected some of those excuses here, with responses. (Please note that this article is focused on animal rights activism in the USA, and may not apply to other countries.)

“Non-human animals suffer more than any humans, so their needs must come first.”

Stop ranking oppression. It does not save any more animals to tell oppressed humans that their problems must take a backseat, especially when that message is coming from people who are not mindful of their own privileges. Acknowledging the struggles of oppressed humans does not take anything away from non-human animals.

“Non-human animals suffer more than any humans, so talking about human oppression is speciesist.”

(Variation on the above.) Every human – vegan or otherwise – is speciesist to some degree. Calling out speciesism can be helpful in cases such as dog and cat adoption events that serve food made from the flesh of other animals, as this points out the hypocrisy of valuing the lives of some animals above others. The same goes for other single-issue events where animals are already the focus.

Calling out speciesism when vegan activists want to promote, for example, Black Lives Matter events is not helpful, especially when coming from white people or non-black people of color. The same goes for feminist events, especially when the criticism is coming from men. These events are focused on humans, and the awareness that animals are people, not property, is not yet widespread in anti-racist and anti-sexist organizations. To raise that awareness requires work from within.

“Animal rights groups shouldn’t have to talk about human oppression since human rights groups don’t talk about the oppression of animals.”

See above. To most humans at this point in time, most animals aren’t much different from pencils or paper clips; objects to be owned and used at will. Thus, the idea that a piece of property is being oppressed is nonsensical and offensive to them. Changing this mindset must come from within. Showing solidarity with oppressed groups can help bring more activists to the animal rights movement.

“Addressing human oppression takes time and resources away from the animals.“

No activist can be expected to devote an equal amount of time to every cause. But when news headlines and social media feature humans being targeted and killed for their skin color or gender presentation, vegans should join the chorus of condemnation against these acts. Silence is complicity.

“All this talk about human oppression is just political correctness.”

The charge of “political correctness” is to my ears a synonym for “I want to be free to use whatever language I see fit and not suffer any consequences for it.” The same applies to most people talking about free speech and echo chambers. Oppressive language, whether read on a computer screen or heard in person, causes real harm to marginalized people, and drives us away from the animal rights movement.

“Calling out oppression divides the movement. We need to all work together for the animals.”

Silencing concerns about oppressive language or tactics does not save more animals. It simply drives marginalized humans away from animal rights activism.

Some say that rather than “calling out” we should “call in,” and give offenders a chance to reflect on the harm they’ve caused rather than immediately shunning them. I agree only up to a point. If an activist has repeatedly harmed marginalized people through their statements and/or actions, they need to be publicly called out, and removed from any leadership position if applicable. This applies to micro-aggressions (such as gaslighting and tone policing) as well as overt acts like sexual harassment. To do otherwise puts the safety of vulnerable people in jeopardy.

“Talking about race is racist.”

Racism is the oppression of people of color by whites. Talking about racism is how white supremacy gets dismantled. Ignoring or downplaying racism ensures its continuance.

“I don’t see color.”

Not true or possible. I said the same myself once. I know better now.

“All lives matter.”

Appropriating a slogan created by queer black women to highlight violence against black people does nothing to save more animals. It only drives black people away from the animal rights movement. For more of what’s wrong with saying “All Lives Matter” in response to the Black Lives Matter movement, see this video (text transcript included).

“There is no (racism/sexism/other human oppression) in the animal rights movement.”

According to whom? Anyone stating this seriously needs to examine their own privileges.

“There is no (racism/sexism/heterosexism/ableism) in the animal rights movement, according to (this one black/gay/female/disabled activist I know).”

Variation on the above. Folks of all backgrounds have different opinions. But if anyone speaks out about being oppressed, they should be taken seriously, and not dismissed just because another member of their gender or ethnic group had a different experience.

“There is no (racism/sexism/other human oppression) in my particular vegan/animal rights group.”

Again, according to whom? Every group in the USA, regardless of size, is operating under a patriarchal, hetero- and cissexist, white supremacist culture. To counteract this requires deliberate work, which includes having marginalized people in active leadership roles. Simply stating that a group is intersectional is an empty promise.

“No true vegan is (racist/sexist/otherwise oppressive).”

Who gets to decide what a “true” vegan is, or who can rightfully display that label? Veganism is currently seen as merely a dietary choice by the majority of US-Americans, who know nothing about the internal debates in the animal rights movement. Focusing on the “vegan” label as a badge of anti-oppression does not help save more animals or humans.

For more essays on human oppression in the animal rights movement (and what to do about it), I recommend the following sites: Aphro-ism, Sistah Vegan Project, Striving with Systems, and Vegan Feminist Network. More sites about related topics are on my links page.

* As I’ve written previously, intersectionality has become something of a buzzword. Putting anti-oppression into practice is more important than using that specific term.

Racism, Sexism, Speciesism, Veganism

The vegan white boys club continues

10 Comments

My foray into animal rights activism has really opened my eyes to the amount of injustice in the world. Rather than ranking the needs of non-human animals over those of humans, I have been as vocal about racism and sexism (including cissexism) as about speciesism. Unfortunately, many in the animal rights community don’t see the predominance of white male leaders as a problem, whether or not those leaders give lip service to intersectionality.

Recently, Ruby Hamad wrote about racist and sexist messaging by white male vegans, citing as examples Durian Rider, Gary Yourofsky, and Gary Francione. Francione responded with a lengthy, ego-ridden display of white fragility in which he was “astonished” to be lumped in with people like Rider and Yourofsky, and accused the writer of “lumping all men in the same group.” Francione accused Hamad of criticizing his views simply “because some white guy promotes [them].” He also discredited the work of black vegan feminist scholar Dr. A. Breeze Harper based on selected comments from one of her talks.

Here’s the thing. All men benefit from the patriarchy. All white people benefit from white supremacy. As I’ve written previously, saying “not all men” or “not all white people” assures the reader that the charge of racism or sexism is not being levied against them. But dismantling oppression is more important than protecting fragile white male egos. Rather than defensively respond to accusations with “I am not a racist/sexist,” the person accused ought to reflect on their privileges and carefully examine why their statements might be harmful to a member of an oppressed group. What is racist is not up to a white person to decide, and likewise with sexism and men.

Normally I would just ignore Francione (I wrote up a detailed account of my troubles with him previously), but I cannot ignore the deliberate suppression of vegan women of color like Dr. Harper who have done so much work to promote both animal and human liberation. And now Francione’s influence has extended to getting another vegan woman of color, Sarah K. Woodcock of The Abolitionist Vegan Society, removed from VegFest UK. Apparently Tim Barford, who battled publicly with Francione in the past, has now bought into “Frabolitionism,” and didn’t like that Woodcock has been critical of Francione. Nevermind her unwavering dedication to abolitionist vegan advocacy; the crime of being “rude” to a white man is apparently unforgivable.

White men aren’t going to let go of their power and influence in the vegan and animal rights movements without a fight. Choosing which battles are worth fighting is necessary to prevent burnout. I’m realizing the wisdom in Aph Ko’s plan for Black Vegans Rock: “Stop deconstructing white uncritical spaces, and start (re)constructing more black progressive spaces.” As this article promoting Black Vegans Rock states, veganism has a serious race problem. And white men are not the ones who are going to fix it.

Cissexism, Racism, Sexism, Speciesism

Intersectional Justice conference

9 Comments

This coming March, I will be speaking at a conference on Intersectional Justice in Washington State. I was honored to be invited to present at an event that includes a number of animal rights activists of color, including Aph Ko (whose Black Vegans Rock project I wrote about earlier), Sarah K. Woodcock of the Abolitionist Vegan Society, and lauren Ornelas of the Food Empowerment Project. Also, Christopher-Sebastian McJetters, a fellow member of the Black Vegans Rock advisory board, is one of the conference facilitators.

The stated goals of the conference include:

  • look through the lens of animal rights at a range of social justice issues
  • identify ways in which we can better collaborate between and among movements
  • examine the impact of speciesism on humans, other animals, and the planet.

As intersectionality has become something of a buzzword in social justice circles, it is important to understand the roots of the term. As discussed in a post by fellow activist Ali Seiter, the term was coined in 1989 by black legal scholar Kimberle Crenshaw in her essay “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” Crenshaw was specifically  referring to the intersection of racism and sexism faced by black women.

Since then, the term “intersectionality” has been expanded to include all kinds of “isms,” including speciesism. Some feel that this expansion is appropriative, especially when misused by white abolitionist vegans. Some, including myself, have suggested using other words, such as kyriarchy,  to describe intersecting oppressions beyond those specifically faced by black women. Ultimately, though, I feel that the practice of acknowledging one’s privileges, being truly inclusive of underrepresented voices, and avoiding oppression in animal rights messaging is what’s most important, whether or not the term “intersectionality” is used to describe these efforts.

My talk at the conference will be about how to make social justice events more welcoming to trans, non-binary, and intersex people. I’ll also be facilitating a workshop where we will do a “pronoun check-in” and discuss the binary assumptions inherent in gendered greetings and salutations.

I’m excited for this conference, which is the first time I’ve been invited to speak about social justice issues at an out-of-state event. (I did a presentation on cissexism and speciesism earlier this year here in the SF Bay Area.)  My online activism has been getting more attention and is presenting me with more opportunities, which is rewarding for me personally. But more importantly, it is reassuring that more people are being exposed to the message that one does not have to choose between dismantling human and non-human oppression.

Sexism, Veganism

When health gurus promote rape culture

I mentioned in my post earlier today that many health-oriented vegans and others promoting plant-based diets engage in fat-shaming. Fat-shaming is one reason I stopped participating in the forums for Dr. John McDougall*, whose starch-centered, low-fat dietary philosophy I generally follow. I didn’t like some forum members blaming anyone who had a BMI above 22 for any health problems they might have, and I didn’t like the concern-trolling of other people’s weight.

I regret that I engaged in fat-shaming myself at that time, which I’m trying not to do now. Hence I’m noticing more disturbing things about McDougall’s message that I previously missed. In the “Best Of” section of his latest newsletter, he reposts an April 2012 report where he actually blames precocious puberty for inciting sexual abuse of children. He notes that the average onset of puberty was once 16-19 years of age and is now 8-12, due to the rich Western diet. He writes, “The development of female breasts and buttocks activate natural male reproductive behaviors, causing some men to prey on girls.”

This is a sentence straight out of rape culture. Men have no excuse for preying on anyone, regardless of their age or figure. Excusing this as a “natural male reproductive behavior” is nothing short of disgusting, especially when McDougall writes in the same newsletter “Civilized people, however, protect their children.”

Note that I am not disputing McDougall’s argument about what causes precocious puberty. As a child I ate a fairly standard American diet, and entered female puberty** in 1981 at the age of 11, for what it’s worth. But the sexual abuse I endured started well before that time. Sexual abuse and rape are about power, not desire.

In case any McDougallers are reading this and tempted to accuse me of libel, I am not accusing McDougall of actually promoting rape or being a rapist. I am simply pointing out that saying that the abuse of a young girl (or person of any age or gender) is due in any part to “natural reproductive behaviors” is promoting the idea that abusers are not responsible for their actions. As a victim of childhood sexual abuse, I am nauseated by this attitude.

I really hate to see people whose ideas I respect say things that I abhor, but it happens, a fair amount as it turns out. Hence the need for me to be independent.

* McDougall himself is not vegan, but his diet is 100% plant-based other than honey.

** My male puberty began in January 2014, when I started testosterone therapy.

Ableism, Cissexism, Classism, Heterosexism, Racism, Sexism, Speciesism, Veganism

Stop ranking oppression

7 Comments

[Image: Section from a panel of a Robot Hugs comic. Words at the top read “No one benefits from being told that their pain is unimportant, or non existant!” Below the words is a scale with a lighter weight reading “Not Harm” and a heavier weight reading “Harm.”]

Today’s Robot Hugs comic in Everyday Feminism is one of the best I’ve seen all year. Please read it now before continuing.

Done? OK. This is what I’ve been dealing with in the year and a half or so that I’ve been involved in animal rights activism. I’ve written here numerous times about the racism, sexism, cissexism, and other human oppression that is either ignored or exacerbated by animal rights activists in the U.S. It’s driving people like me away from activism, and this is not OK.

Often the micro-aggressions faced by activists from oppressed groups (or by those speaking for other oppressed groups) are far more subtle than being told to “shut up.” It frequently takes the form of being told that non-human animals suffer far more than any human. Whether this is true or not, it is still a silencing tactic.

Silencing people who speak up for oppressed humans does not save more animals. It simply strengthens the perception that animal rights activists don’t care about humans. Some activists indeed proudly admit that they don’t care about humans, as they are misanthropists and hate everyone. Many of them deny their own privileges while saying this. Gary Yourofsky comes to mind.

Part of why I have not committed to taking on a more active or formal role with any animal rights group is that I’ve been continually disappointed by the ongoing oppressive language and tactics of other activists. (Coping with depression and fearing the police are my other reasons for being less active.) I do want to be a voice for the animals, and voices are stronger when raised together than alone. But I don’t like being associated with people whose views I find abhorrent, even if they don’t reflect the sentiments of others in the group.

So I will take this opportunity to remind people that while I occasionally participate in animal rights actions and share the writings of various activists, I am independent and speak only for myself. I do not support or condone any views or activities that are oppressive to other humans. I acknowledge my own privileges and mistakes, and ask to be called out if I make statements that are harmful to those in marginalized groups.

This does not mean that I pledge to never say anything that offends anyone. As a queer black trans person, my very existence is offensive to many. I make no apologies for moderating my own spaces as I see fit. Do not confuse calling out oppression with tone policing. I am a pacifist, but I am not passive.

As I’ve written before, a “vegan world” that continues to elevate the voices and needs of able-bodied cishet white men above all others is not a world I want to be a part of. While I will never go back to eating or otherwise exploiting animals – as to me they are people, not property – I will not continue with organized animal rights activism if that means setting aside the concerns of marginalized humans. I am not abandoning the animals, I am abandoning humans with toxic mindsets.

Ableism, Sexism

Victims and survivors

5 Comments

[Image: The spires of a wrought iron gate, with golden light in the background.]

Content warning: Rape, sexual assault, sexual violence.

When oppressed people speak out about the suffering we’ve endured, some like to accuse us of “playing the victim.” I thought about this when reading an article about sexual violence posted today in Everyday Feminism. In it, the author notes the trend of referring to people who have been raped or otherwise sexually violated as “survivors” rather than “victims.” She acknowledges the good intentions behind this language, but urges that “survival” status should not be forced upon others, as it can invalidate those who do see themselves as the victims of a crime.

I immediately connected with this sentiment. I’d been referring to myself and others who have endured sexual assault as survivors rather than victims, but I do feel strongly that I was a victim of a crime for which I can never receive justice. The man who sexually molested me for years when I was a young child never had to answer to his crime, and died a respected member of his community. The impact of this experience has been devastating, ultimately resulting in me cutting off all contact with my blood family (with the support of my therapist).

I am a survivor only in the literal sense that I am still alive. The cumulative impact of depression, gender dysphoria, and the daily micro-aggressions I experience as a queer black trans person make it difficult enough to get through each day. Being told that I’m “playing the victim” when speaking about my experiences, and being told that I need to forgive my abuser, just add insult to injury.

I’ve seen troubling examples of this attitude in the animal rights community (though I’m sure it exists in all activist communities, that’s the one I’m most involved with currently). Women who have been sexually harassed by other activists have been silenced, accused of exaggerating or outright lying, told they are being “divisive,” and otherwise shamed for bringing attention to abusive members of the community. Women have been told that their suffering is trivial compared to the oppression of non-human animals. Sexist messaging only amplifies the message that women’s bodies are more important than their words.

While I’m not a woman, I was living as a girl at the time I was molested, and many young boys are molested as well. Adult men are also sexually assaulted, of course, and their reports need to be taken seriously. Sexual violence is wrong regardless of the gender the victim – or survivor, if they choose that language – and that includes trans and nonbinary people. The Everyday Feminism infographic on “How Do I Know If I’ve Been Raped?” is informative. (The abuse I experienced did not meet the current legal definition of rape, as there was no penetration, but it was still sexual abuse.)

Telling people to “stop playing the victim” does nothing to abolish the rape culture that results in so many people becoming victims in the first place. Stop derailing and diminishing when people speak out about sexual assault. Thank them for trusting you with their stories, and ask if there’s anything you can do to help.

What people can do to help me is respect that I need a lot of solitude and personal space right now. Writing is my primary form of activism currently. Deriding people who post on social media as “armchair activists” is ableist and often unfair. I’m doing what I need to do to survive.