Miranda Yardley: Common Threads And Narratives of Transgender Children And What This Means For Our Lesbian And Gay Populations

Miranda Yardley writes:

This is some original research I did for a larger project which for reasons of space I shall be referring to from that project. It’s good I think to have this out here in full as it would have been quite a long section that makes some points I believe are important.

In the UK, the national centre for the assessment and treatment of gender dysphoric children and young adults is the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, based in Leeds and London. Taken from the document ‘Gender Identity Development Service Statistics‘ we can see that in 2009/10, the number of referrals of natal males was 56 with 40 referrals of females, with a single referral of a child “of transsexual parent” with no apparent attempt to identify sex, total 97, split 58.3% male and 41.7% female. The latest reported figures for 2015/16 which show a total of 1,419 referrals split between 490 male and 929 female and a shift in composition to 65.5% female and 34.5% male. This represents a huge increase in the numbers of children and young adults seeking help for gender non-conformity and cross-sex identification, as well as a significant change in the composition of children and young adults seeking help; historically, the reported incidences of males seeking such help has far outstripped the numbers of females, yet this appears to no longer be the case. Overall, there has been a fifteen-fold increase in referrals of children and young people over a six year period, and a 23-fold increase in girls against an 8.75-fold increase in boys.

I have used public sources to examine the commonalities between the lives and experiences of children who claim a “transgender” identity. Historically, stories that made the media consisted mainly of adult males who announced to the world their new identity, however recently we are seeing more evidence of these young children and adolescents as well as females “transitioning” to male.

The following quotes are extracted from a selection of stories on the Daily Mail (British newspaper) website looking at young transgender males (sources are linked at the end of this piece):

They had presumed their prancing, pink-loving son who squirreled away cousins’ girl toys was gay… He wore sweatpants around his head to mimic ponytails and dressed as a princess for Halloween. And he hated boy things – especially his body.[1]

Sources said the youngster had confided in friends that he wanted to be a girl and would put on a bikini to go swimming and use a Barbie towel. He rode to primary school on a pink scooter and wore pink ribbons in his hair.[2]

While Blaine preferred playing with trucks and cars, Keat liked dolls. At school he liked playing dress up with the princess dresses… Keat was so happy in her skin but I dreaded that first day back at school where she would be going back to class with pigtails and a pink backpack.[3]

She grew her hair out, pierced her ears, and wore dresses everywhere – even to kindergarten… growing up Jazz’s bedroom was filled with girly things – pink bed linen, a closet filled with dresses and an ample collection of stuffed animals.[4]

When she chats with people, she introduces herself as, “Hi, I’m Sadie, my favorite color is pink, I’m vegan, and I’m transgender. Who are you?”‘ Sage said.[5]

“I’m wishing for the one I love to find me!” the preschooler would enthusiastically sing into the toilet, copying Snow White, who sings into the echoing wishing well in the animated Disney movie. Six months after her second birthday, her parents say Ryan was drawn to all things pink and sparkly. Ryan, the boy, wore pajama pants on his head, pretending it was long hair, or acted out girl roles from movies.[6]

Danann Tyler, who was born male but now dresses as a little girl and has long hair,… he never had any interest in the toys his elder brother Liam had loved. His sippy cup had to be pink. When a family friend playing dress up put him in a princess gown, he refused to take it off.[7]

The commonality of these narratives is striking, within these seven stories mention is made of the following: a preference for pink (7/7), hair (6/7), princesses and dresses (5/7), ‘toys for girls’ (5/7).

This does not appear to be unique, and is filtering through to childcare organisations. Interviewed in 2015, the CEO of the transgender children’s charity Mermaids Gender said [….]

Article continues at Common Threads And Narratives of Transgender Children And What This Means For Our Lesbian And Gay Populations | Miranda Yardley

Stop Trans Chauvinism Statement Against Feminists Collaborating with the Right Wing

Is it a good idea for gender-critical feminists to make alliances with the Christian Right on issues we might agree on? Stop Trans Chauvinism collective maintains that this is a disastrous strategy.

We understand that feminists who have chosen to work with right-wing Christians are sincerely trying to accomplish something positive for women. But we believe this is a terrible mistake and urge them to reconsider their actions. We hope to engage in a principled discussion of the implications of these alliances, which does affect how the public views all feminists, and all gender-critical feminists in particular. This is an important discussion we must have.

The Republican Party in the USA is a coalition of Christian Fundamentalists, the extreme alt-right, the KKK, and more moderate conservatives, all supporting Trump. Given that the Trump administration is moving the USA towards fascism, anyone making an alliance with any section of the right is in effect making an alliance with fascists. It is particularly the Christian right that takes a special interest in opposing transgender causes, and which has teamed up with some feminists.

Feminist Problems with the Left and Liberals

We recognize that gender-critical feminists have been under a McCarthyist-style siege for many years now. We are no-platformed, banned, blacklisted, and have had our property damaged or destroyed. We have been doxxed, and even fired from our jobs.

The Left is almost entirely enmeshed in the trans chauvinist narrative. Speaking up with any criticism of the anti-feminist positions of transgender activists gets one kicked out of groups and shunned as “transphobic.”

Some left and liberal groups embrace the trans chauvinist narrative fully, and place trans chauvinist issues as central to their purpose. They have swallowed the postmodernist line – if only on gender issues – that material reality is inconsequential and that feelings are more important than actual exploitation.
Other left and liberal groups simply give lip service to the trans chauvinist narrative. Organizers may not feel strongly about the issue, or may even secretly agree with gender-critical feminists, but won’t take a stand, because they know that to do so means to face the same attacks and ostracism that feminists face. They won’t take on that battle. They are cowards.

All of these groups have rejected and undermined the collective open discussion, debate and tolerance for differences of opinion, which the oppressed require in order to advance our cause of liberation. They have contributed to the climate of fear for anyone who doesn’t toe the line, and to conformity, non-questioning and lack of reason. We must learn to view debate and disagreement as positive, as helping our movements to grow. We must not be so quick to label those who disagree as “haters.”

In face of this rejection by the Left, as there are few avenues for feminists to get out our message, some gender-critical feminists have turned to right-wing Christians as allies. Out of desperation, out of isolation, out of misplaced idealism, and/or out of naïveté. We know these feminists are trying to accomplish something in the face of hardship, but we feel they are making a grave error. We hope that they will re-examine what they are doing by making alliances with the Christian right, and reconsider.

True, the right wing agrees with us about not letting male-to-transgenders (MtTs, or ‘transwomen’) into women’s bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. The right wing agrees with us that no one is able to actually change their sex. But the right wing are not our friends.

RIGHT-WING CHRISTIANS ARE NOT OUR FRIENDS

They are anti-feminist. They are anti-lesbian and anti-gay. They are against gender non-conformity. They are anti-abortion. They are patriarchal. They are for male domination over women. They are racist. They are capitalist. They are imperialist. They are climate change deniers. They are for ravaging the environment.

They pass laws that result in women being arrested for having a miscarriage. They are the people who have doxxed names and addresses of abortion doctors and scientists who work with fetal tissue to anti-abortion groups – and such tactics have led to people being murdered. They are for replacing public schools with vouchers so religious schools can be federally funded. These are the people working for religious exemptions laws that allow pharmacists to refuse Plan B to rape victims. We could go on and on.  For feminists to ally with the Right is to ally with the Patriarchy DIRECTLY. That is terrifying! This is especially harmful at this point in history in the USA, given that president Trump is making concrete moves towards fascism. Feminists who make alliances with the right wing, especially now in a period approaching fascism, are making a mistake that they will regret for many years.

Gender abolitionists and the Religious Right are NOT aligned on transgenderism

The right wing is anti-transgender because it wrongly perceives transgenderism as threatening the rigid gender roles so beloved to the right-wing Christians and because it associates transgenderism with homosexuality which it condemns.

In contrast, gender-critical feminists say that people should not have to conform to the gender norms.

Gender critical feminists believe that women and girls should not be coerced into being passive, nurturing, feminine, or wearing dresses; and that men and boys don’t have to be domineering, aggressive, masculine, or forbidden from wearing dresses.

Gender-critical feminists believe that being a lesbian or gay man is fine. Children deserve the chance to work this out themselves, and that minors should not be subjected to surgeries and to hormones which can result in permanent changes to the body and sterility. Medical transition should only be made by legal adults (which is not to say that we endorse this) and children should never be told that their body is wrong.

The majority of children who are diagnosed as having gender dysphoria will, if left to themselves, grow up to be gay, lesbian or bisexual. Right-wing Christians almost ALWAYS omit this fact. And conservatives do not care one bit that lesbians are being targeted by the Gender Industrial Complex and socially coerced into transitioning.

The right wing can and will use the excesses of trans rights to dismantle gay and lesbian protections and women’s rights.

For example, they could exploit women’s reasonable fears of male violence by trans in public restrooms to oppose lesbian and gay civil rights and frame overly broad gender identity laws as “LGBT rights,” and stir up antagonism towards gay and lesbian rights among “liberal” women.

They could also use “protection of women” to oppose civil rights protections for lesbians and gays, as overly broad gender identity laws are tied to lesbian and gay civil rights bills which are necessary in the U.S. Because lesbians and gays do not have protection under federal law, unlike trans people, who do. This is happening already and working like a charm.

Funding

Some feminists have accepted funding from right-wing sources.

While it is true that feminism is underfunded and we women are underpaid, taking money from the enemy is not going to work. Once they pay you, they own you. Once you become dependent on their money, you are at their mercy. You can neither publicly criticize them nor fight against their policies or actions. They will make demands. Some feminists might see right-wing institutions as an easy source of funding, but in reality the right wing are expert con-artists and swindlers. They will use us to their own ends.

News Media

Left and liberal news media ignore or distort reports of MtT violence. They report MtTs as “women,” giving the impression that women are committing violent crimes. Or they ignore these reports completely. Some news reports on MtT violence can only be obtained from right wing sources. This is a serious problem and we need to call out and pressure the left and liberal news media on this.

However, sharing news from right-wing sources, who believe a woman’s destiny is to be a mother and housekeeper, and a man’s is to lead the family, only undermines our credibility as feminists. When we share these articles, we are bringing more traffic, and more advertising dollars, to these right wing sites.

Feminists should not write for right-wing media. When feminist articles appear next to anti-abortion articles, next to racist articles, next to articles promoting prayer in the schools, it puts feminist writing into a very bad context.
Our own feminist news media needs more support. We need to give them our talents, our money, our time, our reading, and help promote them.

Misplaced idealism

Some feminists idealize working with conservative women. They don’t see it so much as a ‘necessary evil’, but as a fine tactic with few adverse consequences. The right-wing women these feminists work with may be friendly and personable, and may avoid saying comments that would offend feminists in front of them. But feminists aren’t teaming up with “nice women” –they are teaming up with women who have a very set political agenda.

Right-wing women are oppressed as women, and sometimes as members of other oppressed groups. They suffer from the violence of patriarchy, and deserve our support on that basis. However, right-wing organizations are male supremacist. Most of those run by women have parent organizations controlled by men. Their right-wing agenda hurts people – it is sexist, racist and anti-worker. We are not helping right-wing women by allying with these capitalist and bigoted organizations.

We can be sisterly to individual right-wing women we know, showing them solidarity in the challenges they face as women, and educating them on feminist principles if it appears they are open to listening. We can do that without making alliances with their despicable organizations. Women who are firmly committed to the politics of these right-wing organizations do not, however, engage genuinely with women’s needs (which include reproductive justice, workers’ rights and anti-racism). They do often know how to talk a good game.

Single-issue coalitions

It has become popular amongst some feminists to assert their support for coalitions with the Christian right on a single issue, as though they automatically advance women’s rights.

We cannot afford a blind faith in these coalitions, but need to put in the work necessary to figure out whether they do in fact benefit the oppressed at the time they’re undertaken. It is too tempting to simply assert that the feminists in these coalitions are retaining their independence, rather than looking at what’s really happening. For instance, if feminists simply happened to agree with a conservative group on one piece of legislation, that would be one thing. It’s quite another when feminists enter coalitions with far more powerful and resourced extremists and are pushed into further and further public alignment with them, and into making little public critique of them. That’s not a sign of political independence. When gender abolitionist feminists do this, it creates the impression that we believe gender identity legislation is a bigger threat to women than the right-wing attacks. That’s a fast way to appear extremely out of touch.

Feminists who have aligned with right-wing Christians have made the tasks of opening up discussion, and acceptance of gender-critical thought amongst the oppressed – our far more ‘natural’ allies – so much more difficult. Gender-critical thought is going to be seen by the public as a right-wing ideology. It will be harder for feminists to dissuade them of this impression.

We feminists always need to retain an independent voice. Anything that threatens this is not worth it.

What does it mean to have an Independent Feminist Movement?

Despite its often severe shortcomings, the left wing of politics always has been and remains better for women than the right. We can and must continue to criticize, pressure and harangue the left for its failures in supporting women. However, saying that the left wing is as sexist as the right wing is hyperbolic, and often serves as a cover for opportunism. And, as we mentioned, it is especially dangerous now in a period when the US government is dangerously close to fascism.

The line that “we have to deal with either the Left or the Right” is an opportunist dodge which takes us away from where we need to focus women’s energy and resources: not on bourgeois politicking, but on building up the political strength of a women’s movement that is as independent as possible of all the social hierarchies and their enabling institutions.

“Left wing versus right wing” is vague about whether or not we’re working with the oppressed, or if we’re sending resources the way of our oppressors! Especially given that many of those employing this framing include billionaires in the ‘Left’ column, and skate over the fact that the right-wingers they want to work with are probably not working-class conservatives. It is very hard to justify this framing, except if one has undue illusions in what a small group of feminists, in partnership with a far more powerful group calling the shots, can achieve via capitalist politics.

Obviously, transgenderism is a far better generator of profits than feminism, with the latter’s opposition to fetishizing femininity and to pathologizing any rejection of sex stereotyping. In addition to this, ultra-right forces will continue reinforcing the anti-woman environment in which desperate young people look towards transgenderism as the solution to their problems. So the rationality of funnelling one’s resources into working with these anti-woman extremists is befuddling. An anti-capitalist, firmly feminist response, is the only one which makes sense.

Women will and must be the agents of our own liberation. We need to build up our own political and organized strength as women and as workers.  There are plenty of useful projects that don’t need big funding from the right wing. Feminists have been able to accomplish substantial gains without funding from conservatives, and without alliances with right-wing groups. We can do it too.

Sheep in WoLF’s clothing: Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) and its Christian Theocrat Funders

stc sheep wolf

Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) is being funded by right-wing Christian theocrats who have an immense international reach and national influence over USA politics and legislation.  More than that, however – it has also directed resources the way of anti-woman extremists. 

On Nov 5, 2016, members of WoLF were notified that it had solicited and received $15,000 from Alliance Defending Freedom.

This email said:

WoLF Board member Kara Dansky applied for and received a $15,000 grant from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a group of conservative lawyers who are representing states and parents in lawsuits similar to ours across the country. Also pretty darn phenomenal.

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)  is the largest right-wing evangelical Christian nonprofit law firm, with a reported total revenue of $61.9 million for the year ending June 30, 2015, and net assets of $39.9 million.

ADF was founded by James Dobson and Alan Spears.Dobson is the founder of Focus on the Family, an anti-feminist, anti-gay and lesbian organization with $139 million in revenue. Alan Spears is “a former Justice Department official under President Ronald Reagan who wrote The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.

Some of ADF’s biggest funders have been:

  • Betsy DeVos, current secretary of education,
  • her brother Erik Prince of Blackwater, the billionaire private mercenary who got away with murder and was accused by his former employees of “wanting to start a religious crusade against Muslims” and who is allegedly advising Trump “on matters related to intelligence and defense” and
  • Hobby Lobby’s founder and CEO, billionaire David Green. Hobby Lobby is the company that won the Supreme Court ruling that Hobby Lobby could refuse to pay for women employees’ birth control on the grounds that women having control over their reproduction violated the religious beliefs “of the corporation” (of Mr. Green).

ADF also is the law firm which has been the driving force behind recent Religious Freedom Restoration Acts. ADF advised former Indiana governor and current Vice President Mike Pence’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This bill would have allowed individuals and businesses to discriminate against gays and lesbians on the grounds of “religious rights”.

ADF is also now an international organization with UN status, and is expanding into other countries, notably Latin America and Eastern Europe, to fight against legalizing abortion and same-sex marriage.

As Gillian Kane writes:

Today, ADF is one of the largest conservative legal organizations in the United States, with a budget dwarfing those of sister groups like the Becket Fund and Liberty Counsel. Indeed, one might argue that it is chiefly responsible for the rightward jurisprudential shift on religion in the public sphere. ADF engages the question of religious freedom broadly. They are best known for litigating on the role of religion in public life, a category encompassing abortion, LGBTQ rights, freedom of expression—including the right to religious free speech in public schools—homeschooling, parental rights, and family, among other issues.

They claim to have been active on six continents and across at least 41 countries, where they prosecute their anti-gay, (straight) fathers’ rights and anti-abortion agenda, sometimes successfully blocking human rights protections for lesbians and gay men in other countries¹.

We cannot afford to deny that ADF’s activities detrimentally affect women around the world given this group’s power and reach, as Kane describes:

ADF’s ambition is boundless; they work not only in national courts, but are also vigorously inserting themselves in regional courts and at the United Nations. In 2010, ADF launched their Global Initiative, ramping up the “international fight for religious liberty for Christians and establishing a larger ADF footprint to accomplish this mission.” That same year, ADF was granted United Nations ECOSOC special consultative status. This status is significant because it gives them virtually unfettered access to U.N. missions during key convention and treaty-drafting meetings. They advocate face-to-face with delegates and help them develop rights-limiting language for inclusion in U.N. documents.

In 2012, ADF opened their first international office in Vienna, Austria, which enabled them to easily toggle between the various European courts, including the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. They have also inserted themselves at the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights in Vienna, the European Parliament in Brussels, and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. In all these regional bodies they have focused their efforts on issues like abortion, euthanasia, registration of churches, and homeschooling, wielding their influence across countries such as Sweden, Turkey, Germany, Hungary, and Bulgaria.

Knowingly or unknowingly, WoLF has basically solicited and accepted funding from the ideological wing of the Trump administration. That is pretty darn phenomenal, indeed.

ADF is the largest right-wing evangelical²  law firm because they took over all their competition and they have a reputation of playing hard with their own kind. ADF requires loyalty pledges from those who work with them. Was WoLF required to sign a loyalty pledge? Who the fuck knows – and if they had, they would be required to lie about it.

WoLF’s involvement with ADF is not merely a concern to feminists in the USA, but is also a concern to feminists outside the USA, as WoLF has ambitions to insert itself in international women’s issues and events, and plans to attend the 61st session of the Commission on the Status of Women.

Opposing the legalization of same-sex marriage had been ADF’s biggest cash cow.

Between July 2002 and June 2003, ADF raised an impressive $15.5 million. In November of 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Courtruled that same-sex couples were guaranteed the freedom to marry. ADF denounced the “extremely disturbing” images of “homosexual couples receiving pseudo-‘marriages’” — and raised $17.7 million, $21.6 million, $25.3 million, and then $30.6 million in the years that followed.

Concerned homophobes were solicited by ADF to encouraged donate $$$$$$$$ to “defend marriage”. Well, that cash cow died. However, there is a new culture war to exploit now and boy, is it a doozy: ADF can now exploit women’s reasonable fears of overly broad gender-identity laws that allow any man to self-identify into women-only spaces and solicit funds in the name of “defending women”.

What ADF really needs to attract the cash is some friendly feminist white faces to sell opposing LGBT rights to the US public as “defending women’s rights”. Overly broad gender-identity ‘protections’ that allow people to self-identify into opposite-sex facilities have been hog-tied to civil rights protections for gays and lesbians. It’s been absolutely disastrous, as civil rights for gays and lesbians in the US are not provided at the federal level; they are state- or locally based, and civil rights bills have been defeated due to the inclusion of these overly broad ‘protections’. But what a boon for political forces who wish to roll back civil rights for gays and lesbians! Now they can exploit the public’s reasonable objections to these overly broad laws in order to defeat civil rights ordinances that would prevent gays and lesbians from being fired. Trans people are already covered under Federal law; gays and lesbians are not.

It’s an awful situation; the civil rights of gays and lesbians should not be tied to the right of any man to self-ID into female-only spaces. One would think that if WoLF wanted to “reach across the aisle” and work with conservatives, reaching out to conservative gays and lesbians who are in favor of civil rights for gays and lesbians, but opposed to overly broad gender-identity protections, would be the logical thing to do. Nah, WoLF doesn’t do that. WoLF decides to go knocking at the door of ADF, the law firm which wants homosexuality to be a criminal offense again.

According to one former Board member, the decision to take money from ADF was done out of desperation following WoLF’s decision to pursue a lawsuit contesting the Obama administration’s executive orderthat transgender students be allowed to use locker rooms and bathrooms, and to play on sports teams, according to their ‘gender identity’ instead of sex. The lawsuit (which is now a moot case and waste of money since Trump tossed out the Obama administration’s executive order) turned out to be more expensive than WoLF expected. Now WoLF owed lawyer David Bookbinder, (who is also the husband of a WoLF member, hmmmm) far more money than they could raise. It was to be a one-time thing and something which WoLF intended to keep secret, this former board member alleges.

At any rate, WoLF seeking money from anti-feminist, anti-gay and lesbian right-wing evangelical Christians wasn’t a one-time thing.  On January 12, 2017 board meeting notes informed members that:

The board voted unanimously to engage Imperial Independent Media to fundraise for WoLF on a 20% commission basis, and to authorize Natasha to enter into a contract for these services on behalf of WoLF.

Imperial Independent Media is one man, Zachary Freeman:

Zachary Freeman

Managing Partner at IIM, LLC

Greater Seattle Area

Public Relations and Communications

Current
  1. Imperial Independent Media
Previous
  1. Family Policy Institute of Washington,
  2. Alaska Family Council,
  3. The Family Action Council of Tennessee
Education
  1. Liberty University
Websites
  1. Company Website

Freeman is a right-wing evangelical Christian who graduated from Jerry Falwell’s right- wing evangelical Christian university and has pretty much only worked for Focus on the Family-affiliated groups that work to criminalize abortion and deny civil rights to gays and lesbians.

Even more disturbing was Freeman’s recent involvement in an attempt to release the names of scientists and lab workers who utilize fetal tissue in their research to an anti-abortion group.

A group of researchers and employees affiliated with the University of Washington’s Birth Defects Research Center has filed a federal class-action lawsuit and is seeking an injunction to prevent the release of its names to anti-abortion activists through a public-disclosure request.

The employees say they fear harassment, backlash and violence if their names and other identifying information — including some home addresses and telephone numbers — are turned over to the California-based Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group whose founder, David Daleiden, is responsible for the release of controversial “sting” videos about fetal-tissue experimentation and Planned Parenthood that resulted in a national furore last year.

Daleiden and Zachary Freeman, the communications director for the anti-abortion Family Policy Institute of Washington, are named as defendants in the lawsuit since they are seeking the release of the records through the Washington Public Records Act. The UW is named as a defendant as the agency preparing to release the information.³

Such tactics in the past by anti-abortion activists have resulted in harassment, bomb threats, bombings, and murder.  This is the man who WoLF wants to enter into a mutually beneficial fundraising contract with. So not only is WoLF willing to solicit and accept money from anti-feminist, anti-gay and lesbian right-wing evangelical Christians, but it is also willing to use itself to fund these people.

Is Freeman going to have access to WoLF’s membership list for fund-raising purposes and have an international list of names, emails, addresses, phone numbers of women who think they are joining a  feminist organization? Who knows, but I imagine that if he and his fellow right-wing evangelical Christian cohorts wanted access to it, it would be easy to obtain.  Getting a membership list wouldn’t be hard for people who have come to power by engaging in stealth politics for the last 30 years. These are the same people who took over the Republican Party in the 90’s by using stealth tactics.

WoLF has already proved to be neither feminist, strategic or smart.  I mean, when WoLF’s members are rightfully freaking the fuck out, and publicly discussing its decision to take money from and fund right-wing evangelical Christians (who want to imprison women for miscarriages and make it legal to discriminate against gays and lesbians), WoLF considers that to constitute a “leak” and a “security breach”. So I find it hard to believe that that they have any actual security regarding sensitive information like member’s names, emails, addresses or phone numbers.

A former board member of WoLF alleges that she resigned after being pressured by a current board member to go along with WoLF’s proposal to enter into a fundraising contract with a “male right-wing fundraiser” she called “Zack”. This man “Zack” she alleges, “was willing to do this paid work if WoLF agreed to stop advocating for abortion rights”. It would seem that someone like Mr. Freeman whose professional life has involved working to make abortion illegal would be compromising his professional and personal integrity by agreeing to enter into a mutually beneficial fundraising contract with WoLF. One would assume that a radical feminist group would advocate for abortion rights. Perhaps the only one here with their integrity intact is Mr. Freeman.

There are women who are former Board members who object to what WoLF has done and who could come forward and speak out, but they are afraid of hurting the organization. I think they should be afraid of WoLF’s success.

Who is going to fund WoLF now that it has publicly aligned itself with the likes of Focus on the Family, Alliance Defending Freedom and Mr. Zachary Freeman, and other right-wing organizations? WoLF has found its base and it’s not one that has any interest in women’s liberation. However, it is one with very deep pockets that can easily fund a “radical feminist” group to do things that advance the Trump administration’s political agenda.

The Trump administration’s ideological base IS right-wing evangelical Christians; 81% of them voted for Trump because Mike Pence is one of them.

“Oh that’s crazy, you crazy lady;  what would right-wing evangelicals want with a radical feminist group?” Well, ADF already has invested money in WoLF and I’m sure it’s ADF who recommended WoLF hooking up with Zachary Freeman, so they see something possible in that relationship. Large political organizations with very set political agendas don’t go around giving non-profits thousands of dollars just to feel good; they donate money because they want results. For instance, they feel that your organization’s work aligns with their political goals, or they see you as a threat and want to co-opt or neutralize your organization. For Pete’s sake, on ADF’s grant application webpage it states:

We offer a partnership that goes beyond monetary support. We invest together and offer consultation and legal expertise when you request it.

Just put on your thinking cap for a few minutes and think “what would I do with a “radical” feminist group if I were a Christian theocrat who wanted to roll back the rights of women, gays and lesbians and minorities?”

Well,

  • Use radical feminists to oppose civil rights ordinances for gays and lesbians, on the grounds that such ordinances are tied to overly broad gender identity laws and are a threat to women’s safety, would work like a charm. It would be much more effective than using the likes of Michele Duggar, as one could raise money via WoLF from women who would never donate money to an anti-feminist, anti-gay and lesbian group but willdonate to WoLF, unaware that someone like ADF is getting a cut for providing media connections and legal support.
  • It would be really easy to use WoLF by funding them in agitating for Planned Parenthood to be defunded on the grounds that Planned Parenthood is providing cross-sex hormones on an informed consent basis. Defunding Planned Parenthood is one of ADF’s and Mike Pence’s goals.
  • Maybe use WoLF to sponsor anti-Sharia laws that serve only to stir up Islamophobia, or laws that serve only to harass Muslim citizens, by giving Child Protection Services or ICE the right to remove any child that may be at risk of being subjected to FGM .

 

WoLF has pretty much set itself up to be the Femen of the Trump administration: a group of “radical feminists” who are funded by anti-feminist, anti-gay and -lesbian, anti-Muslim racists. Good lard, why are any former members standing by WoLF? WoLF has utterly betrayed its membership and women in general; it is not owed any loyalty.

 

¹ As this section from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) explains.

² Christian Theocrats, these people

³ Mike Carter at The Seattle Times

FURTHER SUGGESTED READING

 

Previously posted elsewhere, including at Stop Trans Chauvinism.