original article: http://rocredandblack.org/hateful-sophistry-the-misguided-transphobia-of-deep-green-resistance/

This article is a critique of a presentation given by a member of Deep Green Resistance on their official gender politics. Deep Green Resistance (or DGR) is a US radical environmental organization founded by Derrick Jensen, Lierre Keith, and Aric McBay that advocates, among other things, the forcible dismantling of industrial civilization. Recently, a controversy at a conference in Portland involving several DGR members has brought increased focus on DGR’s trans-exclusive brand of gender politics, as exemplified by Lierre Keith.

First thing’s first: Trigger Warning. The contents of this article may be triggering or otherwise disturbing. I have attempted to minimize this as best I can. I only wish that discussing the content of DGR’s gender politics wasn’t so unavoidably taxing.

Transphobia (or cis-sexism) is the oppression and marginalization of transgender people, genderqueer people, and others who don’t conform to traditional gender norms. The harmful effects of transphobia can be seen in higher rates of homelessness, sexual assault, drug addiction, unemployment, murder, and incarceration of trans folks, to say nothing of being seen by many as “freaks.” It is a crucial part of building an inclusive revolutionary movement to take a firm principled stand against transphobic bigotry, never more so than within supposedly radical organizations and movements. DGR’s transphobic politics are a dangerous and harmful insertion of bigotry into a radical activist scene that claims to fight for equality and justice. It is important for revolutionaries to stand against all transphobia. And while DGR’s transphobic politics are both wrong and harmful, it is important to realize that many have joined the ranks of DGR for unrelated reasons such as caring deeply about radical ecological struggle. Therefore it is important not to just dismiss these wrongheaded ideas, but to confront them and disprove them for all to see. That is the task of this article.

Second, I’m a cis-gendered, straight, white, working-class male. The style of this debate is frank and direct, I am sure that as a result of these two things some will see this critique as belittling the views of the DGR Presenter (a woman) or of radical feminists in general. I would say, in answer to that, my candor trusts that anyone of any gender who claims to be a revolutionary should be able to handle frank rational critique. And if they can’t, they should get out of revolutionary politics.

Third, in this article I will not attempt to critique DGR’s primitivist or anti-civilization politics. To do this would simply take too long. Rest assured, I do indeed find DGR’s politics outside of gender issues to be just as idiotic as their gender politics.

Liberalism as an Easy Target:

The entire presentation is basically a strawman argument. It presents only two possible kinds of feminism: their position vs. liberal/academic/postmodern feminism. This would seem like a simple oversight, except for the fact that the video is specifically introduced as being (at least in part) for the purpose of responding to the many criticisms made of DGR’s transphobia “by the wider activist community.” So far as I can tell, these critiques are being made largely by anarchists, socialist/communist revolutionaries, and other radical organizations like Earth First! Liberals, as far as i know, have been pretty silent on this. One can only conclude from this that the “DGR vs. Liberalism” setup is an attempt to paint revolutionary transfeminist arguments as liberal and to paint DGR as the only radical answer. This an historically common smear tactic of highly authoritarian organizations.

On that note, the presenter makes sure to state that before she begins that she’s “not presenting this topic for debate. Not in the slightest…. This represents DGR’s policy.” This is another tell-tale symptom of authoritarianism. If the membership is forbidden to debate (much less change) organizational policy, you’re in an authoritarian organization. Who sets policy? How can it be revised? As far as I can tell as an outsider, this policy has been decreed and maintained by Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen. The Presenter even says that there have been DGR members who’ve attempted to change their gender policy. The Presenter says they were unsuccessful and are no longer in DGR. Whether because of expulsion or social pressure to resign, the inability to tolerate internal dissent is yet another marker of authoritarianism. It also seems, from some recently leaked internal emails, that Jensen and Keith constitute a so-far permanent leadership body with the power to order members about (and berate their work) on a whim.

Definition 1: “Liberal” Feminism

It must be said that there is an abundance of things to criticize about liberal feminism as embodied by Women’s Studies academia and the corresponding publishing industry. Not the least of these are idealism, post-modernism, hyper-abstraction, impossible jargon, and a near-total inability to confront class politics. However the DGR Presenter, far from making such pertinent critiques, makes many of the same mistakes as the liberals do: failure to think about the material class reality of gender struggle, convenient confusion based on semantics, and over-reliance on abstract metaphor.

The Presenter confuses the concept of ‘gender identity’ with one’s position in relation to gender struggle. The phrase “innate gender identity” is a contradiction in terms. Identity, by definition, is as fluid and moveable (or as inflexible and rigid) as the person whose identity it is.

The Presenter says that the liberal definition treats both sex (biology) and gender (social behavior) as “apolitical.” This might be an accurate representation of some actual liberal feminists (I’m not a liberal feminist), but it certainly does not represent the position of revolutionary transfeminists (or, for that matter, the truth). Of course masculinity and femininity have differing political content; masculinity is constructed around dominance and violence, femininity is constructed around submission to masculinity. The arrangement of any person’s gender and sex has political implications, but acknowledging this doesn’t automatically prove any particular political conclusion – it’s just part of the complex reality of the fucked up world we all live in.

The Presenter says liberals believe that, “Sex and gender are not necessarily connected.” While not strictly incorrect, this is such a vast oversimplification that it leaves usefulness and common sense behind. It’s true that Sex alone does not determine Gender, but to imply that they have no connection at all is just stupid. Again, this is a misrepresentation intended to make transfeminist arguments sound stupid.

The characterization of trans and genderqueer identities as turning the binary into a spectrum is misleading. While sometimes the metaphor of a gender spectrum may be useful for explaining non-traditional gender, the ultimate aim of revolutionary transfeminism is not to turn the rigid binary into a gentler spectrum between the binary poles – it is to totally deconstruct and disassemble the very notion of gender until there is nothing left but an infinitely diverse array of human character.

Definition 2: “Radical” Feminism

It must be said, in fairness, that most of what is said in this section is more or less correct, so far as it goes, in pointing out the forced subordination and exploitation of women by men. What is objectionable here is that the presentation turns on sophistry and semantic misdirection.

The Presenter says that, unlike liberals (and anyone who disagrees with DGR), radicals reject that gender is either “natural” or “voluntary.” This is put forward as a major point of contention, when in fact it’s just verbal trickery. Setting up these ideas of “natural” or “voluntary” as points of debate is false. “Natural” is false because there can be no denying that what genitalia one is born with (plumbing, as my mother would say) is the result of one’s genes. Nothing beyond that can be said to be entirely “natural,” though one’s biology may well factor into various things. As for “voluntary,” we have to understand that in an unfree world, the world voluntary is always relative. Of course people’s choices and behavior (including gender performance) are influenced by the socially and psychologically coercive elements of society. So in an absolute sense, gender isn’t voluntary, but then neither is anything else (from one’s moral beliefs to one’s choice of breakfast cereal). The point is that Gender can be as voluntary as any other behavioral choice that people can make, under the present circumstances.

As an aside, many femmes would strongly object to the Presenter’s characterization of femininity as reducible to “ritualized displays of submission to males.”

It must also be said that this second perspective is itself highly reformist because it treats gender as a separate system of power from others. For instance, it is inaccurate to simply say that women are oppressed by men. It is certainly true that men are privileged above women and are all too often the casual enforcers of day-to-day patriarchy. But one cannot hope to solve that problem without first examining where the power behind this arrangement comes from and who the administrators of patriarchy are. Where it comes from is the same place that the power for all oppression comes from: the ruling class state and its institutions. The struggle of “women” against “men” without confronting the state that is run by particular rich white men can, at best, result in some nice reforms. The evil soul of patriarchy lives in the ruling state and must be destroyed there if it is to be destroyed anywhere.

Individualism:

The point made by the Presenter that lifestylism (including gender non-conformity) isn’t, in itself, a significant form of struggle is absolutely correct and any revolutionary would agree. Having said that, individuals may find it personally empowering, and that’s not nothing. And we shouldn’t scoff at that unless it’s meant to be a substitute for struggle.

The Presenter has a big applause line arguing that gender isn’t voluntary because no one would choose the brutal subordination that comes with being a woman. This is just dumb. Of course no one would choose that, but she confuses identity with socialization. No one chooses to be socialized as either male or female, and to equate that with identity is both wrong and insulting.

The idea that the existence of trans or genderqueer implies that cis-women are by contrast “capitulating” or “taking the easy way out” is again inaccurate and even more insulting. I have yet to meet a trans or genderqueer person who has seen cis-women this way. Their yardstick has always been (in every instance I’ve known of) whether or not those cis-women (and cis-men) are willing to stand as principled allies in the struggle against transphobia and capitalist patriarchy. This is the barometer for actual struggle, rather than simple denunciation-fodder.

The Presenter reads a Lierre Keith quote: “Gender is not a binary. It is a hierarchy.” It is both. And anyone who can’t fit that into their head should retire from revolutionary politics.

The Presenter’s comparison that we wouldn’t accept someone who claimed to be trans-black, trans-rich, or trans-indigenous illustrates how incredibly bankrupt the ideological development of DGR is. This comparison misses the most basic of distinctions. The Presenter says that if we accept gender as a “class condition” rather than an individual one, then the analogy holds. But the basis for calling anything a “class condition” is a materialist analysis of reality.

Even the most cursory glance at this analogy using a materialist analysis tells us that the analogy doesn’t hold at all; gender functions differently from race or class or colonization. White Supremacy is a hierarchical system based on skin color and other phenotypical markers. These things are innate. You can’t very well change your racial categorization. Gender isn’t like that; it’s a highly nuanced pattern of social behavior and presentation. It is thus a more malleable category. Economic class is primarily determined by one’s relationship to the means of production. This is alterable, but not very easily – and certainly not just by changing one’s outward behavior and presentation. Colonization is based on the forced dispossession of one’s people, land, and history by an invading settler state. The idea that this is comparable to gender is patently ridiculous.

Gender is not only based on social presentation: gender is social presentation. Ergo transgression against gender norms isn’t only subverting the basis for gender, it’s the subversion of gender itself.

Transgender People Aren’t Real:

The Presenter tells the story of a transwoman who once told her, “I don’t have the male privilege that I was raised with anymore.” Of course this is a problematic thing to say. The Presenter points to psychological gender conditioning of children as the basis for privilege/oppression, and that this cannot be transcended and thus gender cannot be transcended. But this argument is also problematic. Gendered upbringing is one of the bases for gender privilege/oppression, but there are others as well. For example, if you present as female you run a higher risk of harassment of all kinds regardless of your upbringing (because harassers don’t much care about your childhood). And should one present in a way that does not “pass,” marking you as gender non-conforming in some way, you run even higher risks of harassment. So it would’ve been more accurate of the person quoted to have said, “I don’t have all of the male privilege I was raised with anymore.”

DGR has also been known to make the inverse argument that transwomen are just men trying to somehow encroach on women’s spaces and struggles. This argument is baffling. First off, being a cis-dude comes with some pretty great perks that women don’t have (this part I do know first-hand). Why anyone would instead opt for not only all the bullshit that women have to put up with, but also with all the bullshit that trans folks have to put up with is frankly fucking beyond me. What would be the point? Getting to go to the women’s caucus at radical gatherings? Anybody who thinks that that would be worth frivolously subjecting oneself to all the oppression of being a transwoman has probably spent too much time at radical gatherings and should go outside and make some new friends.

The Presenter tells a moving story about a person who was born/assigned female and experienced a gluttony patriarchal horrors (sex trafficking, etc) and who came out as transmale while in a care program. The Presenter tells how he drew images of female and male versions of himself with the female image associated with fear and pain and the male image associated with confidence and happiness. The Presenter tells us that this project contained the sentence “If I wasn’t a girl, I wouldn’t have been raped.” While this story is certainly a deeply stirring one, it presents a number of problems. First, the story is anecdotal. DGR and other “radical” feminists are fond of the argument that transmen are just women trying to escape their oppression or assimilate into the privileges of patriarchy. This may well be a factor for some trans folks, for many it may not be. The point is: it’s none of our fucking business!

There are likely as many reasons for being trans or genderqueer as there are trans and genderqueer people in the world, ranging from the biological to the abstract. Given that, there are two choices: either gender identity is determined for people by some outside authority (the state, parents, schools, the DGR cabal) or it is determined by people for themselves.  And it is not up to trans and genderqueer folks to justify themselves and who they are to the world. No one ever expects cis men and women to justify why we are our gender. What does it cost, really, to not be a disrespectful douchebag to folks who are already catching hell? It’s not at all difficult.

The Presenter’s use of this story also reveals the callousness of DGR’s policy. If this young person was able to find some solace from the horrible ravages of patriarchal trauma by identifying as male, then who the fuck is anybody to tell him he can’t? You’d think that so-called “radical” feminists would be the last to add gender policing on top of the trauma of a trafficking survivor trying to live their life. The hubris here is fucking staggering.

Conclusion:

At this point, a wide variety of radicals have weighed in on DGR’s transphobia. Whether it’s Earth First refusing to reprint their material, radical spaces refusing to host their events, DGR members defecting from the organization, or the vocal disavowal of DGR’s transphobia by one of its 3 major founders; Deep Green Resistance has inadvertently called the question on trans-inclusion in the US radical activist scene. And for all the problems of the US radical activist scene, it is to our credit that DGR seems to stand alone in their transphobia. We still have a long way to go, but the recent controversy in Portland has (at least for the moment) united the US radical left in opposition to bigotry in our midst. And, oddly enough, maybe we should thank DGR for that.

original article: http://www.labor-religion.org/2013/05/15/para-una-mejor-calidad-de-vida/#.UaetKetOk4A

On Monday, May 13th  over 200 farmworkers, advocates, faith leaders,  students, teachers, labor partners and community members marched on Albany to demand that equal protections be extended to agricultural laborers. The rally in New York’s capital was lead by Kerry Kennedy (president of the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice & Human Rights), Dolores Huerta (co-founder of The United Farm Workers and compatriot of César Chávez), and Librada Paz (RFK Human Rights Defender and long-time farmworker advocate).

For roughly a decade the Farmworker Fair Labor Practices Act, a bill that would eliminate Jim Crow era exemptions of farmworkers from basic protections afforded to other workers, has waited in the NYS Senate. As New York’s agricultural industry expands from its already important role in our state’s economy, the laborers who work to support that growth do their physically exhausting jobs without overtime pay, days of rest, collective bargaining, or disability insurance. During Monday’s day of action (which included a march and rally, lobby visits, a prayer vigil,  street theatre, and a press conference) the New York State Assembly passed the bill. Now advocates statewide, including Governor Andrew Cuomo, are urging state senators to pledge their support to Farmworker Justice and equal protections for all agricultural laborers. More than ever, it is essential that communities state-wide make their voices heard in support of Fair Food and Farmworker Justice.

• Stay informed and connected! Check out some photographic coverage here, or take a look at our Farmworker Advocacy Day media round-up below:

“Cuomo, ex-wife Kennedy push farm workers’ rights”

“Farm workers and advocates call on legislature to require basic labor protections”

“Rally for rights of farm workers”

“Farmworker rights rally at the capitol”

“Farmworkers Fair Labor Practices Act”

• Sign the petition to protect the workers who feed us.

• Join our Email List for updates, action alerts, and breaking news on the campaign for Farmworker Justice.

• Contact your state senator urging them to help keep our food supply chain fair and just, by extending basic workers’ rights to agricultural laborers. Tell them why you support the campaign for Farmworker Justice, or work from the following statement: “Farm workers are among the most vulnerable workers in our society. Contemporary farm workers endure substandard wages, often brutal working conditions, no health insurance or other employee benefits, horrifying living conditions, and environmental hazards. We urge the NYS Legislature to give farm workers equal protection and rights covered by the National Labor Relations Act of 1938, covering collective bargaining rights, an optional day of rest each week, overtime pay, and unemployment insurance coverage.”

•  Tweet at you state senator, telling them to support New York’s agricultural workers, craft something unique or use our sample tweet: “@(yoursenator) Our booming ag. industry grows on the backs of #farmworkers. Protect ALL of NYs workers! #FarmworkerFairLaborPracticesAct”

Rochester, NY--On May 30, 2013, approximately 50 people--a mix of family, friends, and supporters of Benny Warr--showed up at the Hall of Justice to say, "Enough Is Enough!" A spirited picket occurred in front of the courthouse with protesters chanting of "No Justice! No Peace! No Racist Police!" and "What do we want? Drop the charges! When do we want it? Now!" among other chants in support of Benny Warr, while demanding an end to police brutality.

On May 1, Benny Warr was waiting for the bus in his wheelchair at the intersection of Bartlett St. and Jefferson Ave., near his home. As he was waiting for the bus, a Rochester police cruiser rolled up to the intersection. The officers exited the car and told Warr, to move on. Warr responded by saying he was only waiting for the bus.

According to Warr, the officers then maced him in the face and proceeded to throw him out of his chair where he was kicked, punched, and kneed by police while on the ground. He was put in handcuffs for nearly two hours until he received care at Strong Memorial Hospital for his injuries. He sustained broken and fractured ribs, numbness in his hands, neck injuries, internal injuries, and cuts on his wrists.

In the early morning hours of May 2, he was released and given an appearance ticket. He was charged with disorderly conduct and resisting arrest.

A community rally and march was held in Mr. Warr's Jefferson Ave. neighborhood on May 18. The video can be seen here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hd-2hyQLl2Y

Shirley Stukes, a congregant of Pastor Nina Warr, Mr. Warr's wife, made a statement before everyone filed into court. She said:

    

"Good morning! I am happy and glad to see so many of you out here today. We just want five things. We want the charges dropped against Mr. Warr; we want the police officers that were involved fired; we want a public apology to Mr. Warr; we want the RPD to look at their policies and procedures and actually do them! We want them to read them and follow them! We don't want no 'jacked up' because that's not a policy! If you want to talk about the guys out on the street, then you need to get out there with them! It's supposed to be law and order and not 'jacked up.' We also want the RPD to stop targeting and harassing neighborhoods of color. We want the criminalization of these neighborhoods to stop! They need to enforce law and order, but guess what--not only drug dealers and criminals are in these neighborhoods--I'm livin' in these neighborhoods! I'm not trying to sell any drugs and I'm not trying to shoot anybody. So if I'm out on the street, whatcha gonna do? Jack me up? No jacked up! I'm waiting on the bus. We want respect! Enough is Enough! No broken necks! We want Respect!"



Judge Stephen T. Miller entered a packed courtroom of supporters donning their "Enough Is Enough/Support Benny Warr" t-shirts at 9:30am and promptly called Benny Warr's case. Mr. Warr approached the bar in his motorized wheelchair and said, "I am Benny Warr."



The judge then called Charles F. Burkwit, Mr. Warr's lawyer, and Assistant District Attorney Destini Bowman to the bench for a private conference.



A few minutes later, the attorneys returned to their respective places in the courtroom. Judge Miller set the next court date--a motions hearing--for Friday, June 28 at 2pm.



"There were no offers made today by the DA's office, so court was adjourned for motions on June 28, at 2pm, at which time the judge will hear our motion to dismiss. That's what's next. We're moving on grounds that the factual allegations and information were insufficient. We're asking the judge, in the alternative, to dismiss the case in the interests of justice," said Mr. Burkwit, outside the Hall of Justice after court ended.



Ms. Bowman handed over to Mr. Burkwit discovery items which included three DVDs and some papers.



When asked what was on the DVDs he said, "I have no idea. I have to go back to my office and watch them. I'm hoping they are the blue light camera footage from the camera at Bartlett and Jefferson where this unfortunate incident happened."



When Mr. Warr was asked about the crowd of people there to support him, he said, "I felt so wonderful--there was so much love, so much love. It just goes right through me. It brought me to tears. I just want to thank them, all of them. Thank you."



Discussion is underway for another community rally supporting Benny Warr and other victims of police violence while saying Enough is Enough to the rampant brutality.

Corrected higher res video of Benny Warr being attacked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7xifmR0C3Mk

Rochester Indymedia (Rochester.Indymedia.org) has also released a new video by a community member who goes by the handle “Colbert.” The video shows Benny Warr being elbowed in the face and neck by one of the officers at the :25 - :28 mark. See the video at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTyO1KDusB4

Please sign the petition to have the charges dropped and the officers fired: https://www.change.org/ petitions/demand-all-charges- against-benny-warr-be-dropped- and-the-officers-involved-be- fired

[Ed. Video of today's rally and interviews will be up sometime next week.]

Related Rochester Indymedia articles: Rochester Indymedia checks in with the Center for Disability Rights on Benny Warr's case | Video Reportback! Enough Is Enough! Community Rally and March! | "Not Guilty!" Benny Warr Arraigned | Disabled Man Assaulted by RPD While Waiting for Bus | Flyer for Benny Warr Rally | The RPD's policies and procedures for ADA compliance: Are they doing a good job? | Have you seen these guys? | Have you seen "Big Face"? | Flyer for Benny Warr Rally on May 30th! | Dredging Up the Past on Police Union President Mike Mazzeo

Related articles: Rochester, NY Police officers Assault Disabled Man in Motorized Wheelchair | Rochester, NY Police officer Cedric Felton Remains Professional, When Asked About Incident With Disabled Man in Wheelchair Being Assaulted by RPD officers, but Female officer Has No Comment | Rochester, NY's So-Called 'Black Leaders' Silent After Disabled African-American Man In Wheelchair Is Beaten By RPD Officers | SocialistWorker.org: "My god, they're beating him" | Minority Reporter: Support Growing for Wheel-Chair-Bound Man Beaten by Police

Over 300 people gathered on May 25 2013 to march in solidarity with others in other cities all over the world.  Monsanto, a chemical and agricultural business giant, recently won specal protection from the Government which shields it from liability from any problems caused by its products.  Those products include genetically altered plants and animals as well as toxic chemicals.  The so-called Monsanto Protection Act shields it against damage to the environment as well. 

Marchers in Rochester NY were joined by 436 other cities in 52 countries supporting natural and healthy food.  The 2013 Farm Bill recently signed by President Obama contains a provision commonly known as the "Monsanto Protection Act."  Among other things it prohibits state and local governments from requiring that genetically modified food products be labeled.  Even worse, it will allow these big agriculture corporations to sell GM seeds before they are properly tested, and prohibit the Department of Agriculture from interfering with their sale even if they are later proven to be harmful.