The Stonewall Migraine

By Sophia Siedlberg.

Question:

Should Julie Bindel get this "Journalist of the year award"?

My Answer:

"I could not care less"!

If Julie Bindel had a road to Damascus experience tomorrow with the archangel Christine Burns hovering in the light, it probably will not change the way a lot of people feel about her getting this award. I am being a realist. I know what Stonewall UK are about, protecting the rights of people to do what they want under the duvet. Well OK, it is more complex than that, but this is what it boils down to, sexual orientation. That’s fine. I mean Bindel is a radical lesbian, and as Stonewall UK say, she has often written stuff representing the lesbian community. No one really has an issue with that. Well, I don't. I consider that to be none of my business.

The real point of contention is that an organization that calls itself "Stonewall" (given the historical significance of that name) cannot really have the lesbian folks in it talking about appropriation (of female spaces) when the name is clearly appropriated from an event that is significant mainly to trans folks. Also given that a number of the lesbian folks in Stonewall like to call intersex people "Trans" and adopt the same attitude towards someone like me as they do transsexual folks and transgender folks. As an intersex person, I only have to cite the Intersex Society of North America fiasco as an example of Radical feminist and radical lesbian folks invading my space. And that does not make them look all that innocent when it comes to playing kick the cat (pick on someone lower down in the pecking order, the actions of a bully usually.)

And do I mention the reams of bile written about transsexual folks by some of these radical lesbians? (Of which Bindel's writings are among the most infamous).

How do we resolve this? OK, I want to say that I don't have any issues with lesbian folks. I just feel hurt by all the things that have happened in the past. For me personally the ISNA fiasco is the main issue. I would not seek to walk into a "woman born woman" space but would ask that I don't have "women born women" walking into an "Intersex born intersex" space. I would like to have the right to invite rather than just have them walk in. Is that too much to ask? I would not walk into a "man born man" space either, and again would expect the same respect for my space. (However, men have a tendency to trample everywhere. The lesbians are right about that. I have seen that myself).

There are other issues that are more important. But I am sticking to this less emotive issue because it is obvious that Stonewall UK as an organization simply don't understand other communities – "That homogenous bunch over there, we will call trans and keep away from us" attitude, while using the name "Stonewall" is a perfect example of the problem. I notice how they spoke to the Gender Trust as if it were a "voice from above". I also notice that while I have been the most vocal on this subject, Stonewall decide to talk to another UK OII member. However, they will only get the same questions asked of them about this award and the motivations behind it.

There is a very unpalatable truth here. That truth is a simple one; while they talk of "diversity" and pay lip service to "equality", they clearly regard anyone who physically does not conform to the biological ideals of the two-sex system as beneath them. It does remind me of Orwell's animal farm. "Some are more equal than others".

Back to Julie Bindel on the road to Damascus with the archangel Christine. I get the impression that to many people this looks like a staged event where two people from very opposite sides of the fence sat down in a café somewhere and had a chat about the way things are. And while the intended impression was Christine Burns playing the role of the archangel and Bindel the inquisitor being converted to the cause, the more common portrayal of this is Christine Burns begging to be called a woman and Bindel evading that question, all conducted over cucumber sandwiches and a cup of herbal tea.

I personally would not ask such questions. I would point out the historical and logical flaws in Bindel's arguments, as someone who was a victim (I will use that word) of unwanted infant genital mutilation, who considers Bindel to be a part of the oppressive system that caused it to happen. I know for a fact that Bindel would not feel comfortable with such a characterization, but this is my impression of her and what she says.

For me anyone who props up the two sex system, in terms of stating there are two biological sexes, which are immutable and who appears to deny the existence of people like myself (who are frequently brushed under the carpet, driven to suicide by society if they don't obey are denied justice when raped and told that being surgically mutilated as children is to "resolve a disorder"), then yes, I will exercise my right to free speech and ask awkward questions. I will make provocative statements as well. Well, why not? Bindel can be a bit "provocative" at times. Is it her inborn sense of superiority over me, a biologically sexless individual that enables her to do that? (What I call "Norm born privilege). And I call it that rather than some obscuring term like "Cisgendered privilege" because I know exactly what I am describing, someone born and living "normal" by today's criteria looking down on me and people like me.)

Stonewall must feel like they are in a really awkward place, between a rock and a real stonewall. There is a simple answer. Give Julie Bindle her award. It is a symbolic act of giving an award to someone who is covered by their political remit, so why not. But they really need to rethink their policies, perhaps even their name.

In terms of policy it is actually quite simple. What they describe as "Trans" consists of many different and diverse people, so diverse that I think a generic label like "trans" simply does not apply realistically. I never "transitioned" from one sex to another. To claim I did would give credence to what was done to me as a child. So I would reject that term outright in my case. I have a single focus, and that is my anger over what was done to me as a child, from the surgery to the brutal "socialization" which some insultingly claim was a privilege. So being raped as a "girl" and legally treated as a "boy" and told to shut up to 30 years is a "privilege", is it? Especially when I was born neither a "boy" nor a "girl" physically. I don't think so!

Stonewall UK cannot simply render entire groups of people invisible in that fashion, namely transgender, transsexual and intersex people. That has to change, like a proper education is needed, not some token web page with a few links on it to "safe trans" organizations (safe according to Stonewall).

OK, Stonewall UK do not cover this nebulous "Trans" in their remit. But they can a least try to see the groups dumped under that label as they really are rather than peddling these "men in dresses acting like prostitutes on the high street" stereotypes. (I cannot see the similarity between that and a child who has been surgically altered and then raped and lied to quite frankly. Perhaps I am missing something?)

As for the name, well no. Since giving the award to Julie Bindel, given her past record of writing that is blatantly aimed at demeaning and undermining people dumped in this "Trans" category, I am forced to question why they call themselves "Stonewall" because the fury they are now facing from a lot of people is a re-run of the anger that sparked off the Stonewall riot, and for pretty much the same reasons.

Believe it or not I am prepared to give Julie Bindel the benefit of the doubt, having heard her conversation with Christine Burns, especially after Christine Burns asked that "please don't hit me" question about Bindel seeing her as a woman. There were glimmers of hope in what Julie Bindel did say, like she does not like the phalocentric attitude of the medical profession (I just think she is aiming her anger at the wrong people). She does not really want to enforce sexual oppression; actually she wants to be rid of sexual oppression. And yes to me these are more important answers than how feminine Christine Burns is.

To answer Christine Burn's question (I feel like I need to) as far as I am concerned she is female. There is no issue about that in my mind. I am not a fatalist.  And while Bindel was evading Christine's question I did find her answers interesting.

But please I do not want to wake up tomorrow morning to find yet another email telling me that the status quo stands and I am somehow bad. My general message to Stonewall UK is a simple one. Why not see transgender, transsexual and intersex people as human beings, and stop lumping them under generic categories and stop trivializing them and their experiences in life. You could even consider using a new name instead of Stonewall or you could be a bit more open about the story behind than name and show some respect to those who do have a right to use that name. (Transsexual and transgender folks.) I would not use that name because I am intersexed. It is not part of my history and I would not invade someone else's space by adopting it.

All I ask is people consider that argument and consider what I am saying. We can all actually get along instead of pretending to over cucumber sandwiches.

This article is being revised.