The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, one of the preeminent lesbian cultural gatherings, not only bans women who weren't born women (that is, male-to-female transgendered women), but in a new wrinkle, reports the New York Times, is also saying keep out to "transmen" who are either females transitioning to males or (increasingly) adopting male personas without genital reassignment. So now, the only ones welcome through the gates are "women born as women and living as women."
If any other group discriminated against the transgendered in so blatant a fashion, wouldn't the p.c. police be out in droves?
27 Comments for “Lesbian-Feminists Can’t Be Bigots?”
posted by dalea on
This is a long running nutcase event. It used to be that womyn were not allowed to bring male children, including babies to the event. Which ban extended to lesbian couples. There was a huge outcry in the Chicago gay press. AIR, some gay men set up a camp for the boy children nearby.
Anyway, the people who run the event have had rules like this for a long time. And nothing seems to faze them. It appears that most who go there go to hear music and party. And really don’t care about all the rules. If you ask them, they just roll their eyes and shrug.
posted by Bobby on
Lesbian-Feminists are bigots in denial. Their whole philosophy is about hating men and blaiming men for everything. Ironically, if there were no men, there would be no lesbian-feminists since a woman can’t impregnate another woman.
I’m a big supporter of men’s rights. It’s time to take back the feminization from our nation. I’m a man who loves men, guns, violent video games, and red meat. I refuse to be sensitized into a flaiming queen, which is what the feminazis want.
posted by Audrey on
Why should I listen to these women, they can?t even spell.
posted by dalea on
Additional comment. MWF is an event with strong NeoPagan influence. It is frequently listed as a Goddess Gathering. NeoPaganism frequently has a strong negative view of transgendered people. Which view is based on deep theological grounds.
So, it could very well be that the organizers are acting on religious principals. Would that make this a different case Stephen? Like all the other religious bigots you rush to defend, the MWF has excluded people for religious reasons.
posted by Moz on
MWF is a lesbian *separatist* event, not a lesbian feminist one. I’ve lost count of the number of times that they’ve tried to impose ideological purity checks toward transwomen, thrown lesbians with mental health problems into psych
institutions, tried to evict SM dykes, ad nauseum.
Whether individualist or socialist feminists, most lesbians I know won’t go anywhere near Michigan
these days. They’re not representative of our communities. Their politics froze in the seventies.
Moz
posted by Randy on
I have to agree this is unfair and silly. If it’s a non-profit 501(c)(3), then perhaps illegal as well. If not, then let them do what they want. For any transperson who feels bad about not being invited, I’d say you’re lucky!
However, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. And if you think that the Catholic church has a right to deny gay fully participation in it’s activities, then surely you must support this festival for denying the types of people they believe. We will remember this post next time someone says something about it’s okay for Catholic Charities to ban gays from adopting.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””thrown lesbians with mental health problems into psych
institutions, tried to evict SM dykes, ad nauseum.””””
What kind of music festival is this?
Beyond that, I have little else to say, as everyone else has already exposed the hypocrisy of this whining article.
And Bobby, you’re more whiny and bitchy and hysterical than any woman I’ve ever encountered.
posted by Audrey on
What is an SM dyke?
posted by Audrey on
I say this as an ardent feminist, but most all female music festivals tend to not be very good. It?s often a far to earnest affair. Also, the music its self sucks.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Audrey,
I cannot believe you don’t know what “SM dyke” refers to. It is, of course, a culinary reference. “SM” stands for “sauces and marinades.”
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
Oh, it’s MWMF season again — time to point out what freaks they are and condemn the hypocrisy of the left. It’s a bit like the left’s bashing of snake-handlers and demands that all Christendom renounce their practices.
posted by kittynboi on
“”””Oh, it’s MWMF season again — time to point out what freaks they are and condemn the hypocrisy of the left. It’s a bit like the left’s bashing of snake-handlers and demands that all Christendom renounce their practices.””””
No. See, thats different, because we have to look normal and dumpy and boring and middle aged, etc. etc., and sanke handlers are faithful, etc. etc., MWF is leftist, leftists support communism, therefore they want to put all little league teams and mom and apple pie in gulags, etc. etc., plus some stuff about iraq, terrorism, and how liberals want to take your air conditioner away.
posted by Bobby on
“We will remember this post next time someone says something about it’s okay for Catholic Charities to ban gays from adopting.”
—The key is PUBLIC MONEY, anyone who doesn’t get public money can do as they like. If I were to create a horror club, I have the right to choose a membership. If you organize a sex club at your house, you have the right ot choose your dates.
I think it’s a fairly libertarian position to state that anyone who gets public money is subject to public rules.
posted by dalea on
Catholic Charities does receive public subsidies. It is licensed by the state, receives regular government funded audits, taxpayer subsidies for children it fosters, the government keeps out competition in the adoption business, on and on. So, then it should be open to all the taxpayers.
Please to remember, not all government subsidies come in the form of cash grants. Many of the more insidious corporate welfare ploys are exemptions, regulatory relief, certifications which do not really involve the transfer of money.
By this light, the RC with its tax exempt property holdings receives a tidal wave of tax payer funded support. And the MWF gets very, very little if any.
posted by Bobby on
Dalea, I think Catholic Charities has stopped accepting public money because they want to discriminate against gays. Even O’reilly was shocked (Bill supports gay adoption over children living in institutions), but the catholic church is adamant about their views. Not that I care, I despise those pseudo-conservatives. When it comes to sex, they’re all puritans, but when it comes to money, guns, war, they’re all crazy leftwingers.
As for Tax exempt status, don’t forget groups I despise like PETA and Greenpeace get it.
As far as I’m concerned, taxed exempted is better than government financed.
Government must tax as little as possible and spend as little as possible.
Why? Because then if we ever have another natural disaster, government will have enough cash to bail us out, without going into further debt or taxing more.
posted by dalea on
Bobby:As far as I’m concerned, taxed exempted is better than government financed.
Why? I favor that the only way anyone can get money from the government is thru direct grants of money. No exemptions whatsoever. That way we can see who is on the take. With the exemptions, a lot of free riders and graft is hidden from view. Should all be out in the open.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I think it’s a fairly libertarian position to state that anyone who gets public money is subject to public rules.
Actually, it’s more libertarian to not talk about “public money” at all, and require organizations to raise and distribute their own money — rather than collect from unwilling “donors” in the form of taxpayers.
taxed exempted is better than government financed.
Most Republicans and Democrats alike don’t see the difference, since the Republicrat pretention is that any money which we are allowed to keep is “public funds” which could and may later be subject to pay for any number of big government programs, ranging from wars in Iraq to “national health care.”
if we ever have another natural disaster, government will have enough cash to bail us out
If you’re waiting for government to bail you out of anything, you’re going to be waiting a long time and will be disappointed with the results.
the only way anyone can get money from the government is thru direct grants of money
Why should government be “granting” anybody any money at all? If a cause is so compelling that it gets the attention of a majority or plurality of the populace, people can donate or contribute to it directly — and more of the money gets to the actual cause in question, since there isn’t a government office staffed with thousands of bureaucrats paying themselves out of the involuntary “contribution.”
posted by cesquaq on
PUHLEEEEZE!!!!!!!!! feminists always hated dykes in the first place! they\\’re living right up to the stereotypical male dominant female subservient role that feminists eschew. a feminist dyke is an ox-moron (no spell error). anyway, why would anyone want to have a music festival that bans anyone? music is suppossed to be the universal language to get your message out to the masses. this festival sounds like a preachin to the choir yawn along. how do people like this ever expect to be included in normal society if they seclude themselves? and seroiusly how dare anyone tell me to come to a show and i\\’m not allowed to bring male children or partners or friends? shame on them.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
The trouble with separatism is that it isn’t separate enough.
posted by Bobby on
The feminists hated dykes in the early 70s, but eventually lesbians took over.
I don’t think that event should be included in normal society. Just like I don’t like straight people going to gay bars. HOWEVER, unlike the feminazis, gay bars don’t have rules that say “no breeders.”
Northeast, I doubt we’ll ever become a tax free society, I do think taxes could be 5% or 10%, with the same taxes regardless of income. And I’m completely against property taxes or school taxes. If you have children and you want to send them to a public school, then you can pay taxes. I don’t have kids and I don’t want to finance someone else’s little bastards. On property taxes, I don’t mind a small sales tax when property is purchased, but nothing more.
“national health care.”
—Republicans will never allow that one, we don’t want to pay the taxes for it. War is cheaper. This is how it works, you go to work, factories hire people, they sell armaments to the government, they pay taxes, government collects taxes, they get their money back.
“If you’re waiting for government to bail you out of anything, you’re going to be waiting a long time and will be disappointed with the results.”
—Well, that’s what the government did in New Orleans, remember those debit cards and the trailers? People pay high taxes and expect high returns, they rarely get them but in the case of a natural disaster, it’s a good excuse for the government to help out someone other than themselves. Think about it this way, those people in New Orleans paid federal and property taxes, like the rest of us. The government got rich on them, I think it’s fair for them to get something back.
I will agree that in the 1800s and party of the 1900s, before federal and state taxes, it was private organizations that took care of the needy. But things have changed, in fact, I don’t trust private organizations at all. Did you hear of the Red Cross scandal? Most of the blood collected on 911 was discareded. Not sold out, not given to other countries, not stored, but discared because it was cheaper that way. So the next time those bastards want my blood, I’ll tell them where to stick it.
the only way anyone can get money from the government is thru direct grants of money
Why should government be “granting” anybody any money at all? If a cause is so compelling that it gets the attention of a majority or plurality of the populace, people can donate or contribute to it directly — and more of the money gets to the actual cause in question, since there isn’t a government office staffed with thousands of bureaucrats paying themselves out of the involuntary “contribution.”
posted by kittynboi on
“”””I don’t think that event should be included in normal society.””””
Meaning what exactly?
posted by Moz on
Randy, I don’t know if “sauces and marinades” were involved. It’d mark the leather if they did. Apparently, some of the performers are quite good, and lesbian musical tastes have diversified beyond the cloying seventies folkmusic stage.
And sorry, but I don’t buy the libertarian argument that because it’s a private event they shouldn’t be accountable. Not all lesbians are transphobic bigots, are so pathetically undereducated about psychiatric abuses, or want to repress leatherlesbian sex.
Moz
posted by Bobby on
“”””I don’t think that event should be included in normal society.””””
Meaning what exactly?
—Meaning that lesbians don’t want a bunch of straight men to come out to their festival and stare and their boobs.
A gay pride parade is a public thing, the michigan womyn’s festival is a private thing. Wish they didn’t discriminate against the transgender, but that’s their choice.
To put it simply, if lesbians don’t want me at their event, fine, I don’t need to go. Just as long as they don’t accuse me of being intolerant, we’ll get along just fine.
Besides, the things that happen at that event are embarassing, I heard sex happens there, nudity, people fornicating in the mud, pot smoking. Homophobes already send undercover agents to take pictures. Do you really want straight people to see that with their own eyes?
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
I don’t buy the libertarian argument that because it’s a private event they shouldn’t be accountable
You don’t buy such a libertarian argument because it’s not the libertarian argument.
Accountability is wonderful. So is freedom. You can hold the MWMF accountable by not attending, or slamming it in the marketplace, or starting a competing festival, etc.
What you don’t have a moral right to do is use the government to force the MWMF to run the way you want it to. They’re a private group and have the right to their own mutually held perspective (no matter how deranged), so long as they don’t commit violence.
For every lesbian seeking to use government to regulate the MWMF to force them to end their misandry, there are 2,000 Christian conservatives ready to use government to force gay groups to dissolve and never be reconvened.
posted by Bobby on
Northeast is 100% right. Just because one doesn’t like discrimination doesn’t mean one has to get the government involved.
I say complain about it in the marketplace and encourage others not to attend.
posted by Moz on
Believe me, opposition is happening. However, I’m not sure I agree with you about public nudity, Bobby.
Exactly how is that different from some of the wilder alternative music events?
posted by Bobby on
Hey Moz, glad there is opposition. 🙂
On issue #2, you shouldn’t expose children to sex, and unless we’re talking about a naturist family where nudity is part of their daily life, you shoudn’t expose kids to adult nudity either.
As for other wilder alternative music events? You got me there, two wrongs don’t make a right. I just don’t think those alternative music events, gay or straight, are healthy for children, neither are Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera. So to be fair and balanced, the blame can be spread around.
However, as a gay man it is my hope that my community doesn’t cause too much embarasment.