Kenaz Filan: Pantheacon Problems, Pantheacon Solutions?

Monday, February 27, 2012

Pantheacon Problems, Pantheacon Solutions?

I'd like to start this entry with an honest and sincere question: how do we find common ground between the Dianics and transgender women in this conflict? Before I begin, I'd like to note the following regarding my choice of words.

First, I realize that many Dianics consider "cisgender women" to be offensive: many transwomen consider "womyn-born-womyn" to be offensive. I've used "womyn-born-womyn" in an effort to reach out to the Dianics who are by this point feeling overwhelmed by the opposition. I've also put it in quotes to show that I consider it a problematic term at best.

I've also very deliberately said that many in the Pantheacon community see "womyn-born-womyn" rituals in the same light as "whites only" rituals. I am not entirely sure that is a helpful comparison. (I am entirely sure that comparing Z & Co. to Nazis, KKK members or the Westboro Baptist Church is not at all helpful to anyone and would ask people to refrain from it: I will not approve any comment to this post which uses that kind of inflammatory language). But you gotta deal with what you gotta deal with. If a significant chunk of the membership at a public event equates your rituals with a White Power gathering, then you have a problem which needs to be addressed. We do nobody any favors by ignoring those feelings even if we disagree with them.

I have suggested that Dianics refrain from offering "womyn-born-womyn only" rituals as part of Pantheacon's public calendar. But, honestly, I think that would be a temporary and unsatisfactory solution at best. Right now, for better or for worse and justly or unjustly, a significant percentage of the community sees "womyn-born-womyn only" rituals in the same unfavorable light as "whites only" rituals. And I suspect a Heathen group that wanted to hold a "whites only" blot in their suite would not receive a favorable reception, nor would attendees be mollified because they didn't put it on Pantheacon's public calendar.

After the 2011 brouhaha, the organizers of Pantheacon decided that the problem was that transgender women were not notified ahead of time that the ritual was for "womyn-born-womyn" only. Their response this year was to ensure that Z Budapest let people know ahead of time that her rite was for "genetic women only." And we all see how well that worked at quelling this controversy. Will moving Dianic rites from public to private space fix the problem, or will we just be rehashing these same sad arguments next year? When the discussion started, I thought the organizers at Pantheacon erred by giving a notorious transphobe their imprimatur for her exclusionary ritual without holding her to account for her earlier hateful words. I still think they screwed the pooch on that one - but I'm no longer sure that removing the PCon organizers from this equation will resolve the issue.

Z Budapest and her followers certainly have the right to share or withhold their Mysteries as they see fit. But those who find their criteria discriminatory and hateful also have the right to make their opinions known. As I've said repeatedly in this argument, free speech and freedom of religion don't include the right to a cheering section. And right now it looks like each side has dug trenches and is prepared for a long and bloody war.

Telling Z and her followers that they can create their own "womyn-born-womyn" space in a private suite will likely raise the hackles of transgender women and allies who feel that Pantheacon is enabling hatred and discrimination. And if the comments on various forums are any indication, Dianic detractors are greatly outnumbering Dianic supporters in this conflict. Telling Z she must open her private space to anyone who identifies as female, on the other hand, will be de facto exclusion. If I didn't have the right to offer my rituals and my parties to whomever I saw fit, I wouldn't expend the time and effort to appear at Pantheacon. I doubt very much the Dianics will either.

Would the transgender community be willing to accept Z & Co's right to hold exclusionary rituals in private space? Would Z & Co be willing to accept being told they had to make their public rituals open to the public - or, at the very least, to everyone who identifies as female? I am aware that both of these "communities" are nebulous at best and there will be hurt feelings no matter what happens at PCon 2013. But will this be one of those solutions which satisfies nobody? Or are we ready to engage in the kind of mutually compassionate and understanding dialogue which will help us to reach a permanent resolution?

7 comments:

Unknown said...: For me, the only acceptable solution to this would be to allow her (like anyone else) to hold whatever event they wanted in a private suite.

Any event held at a pagan event that is on the schedule should have a modern-day socially-acceptable code of ethics behind it, including not excluding people based on genetics.

She should be allowed to distribuite information about it, but no more than any other participant would. Hence, no giving out flyers for it at her other presentations / workshops / etc (therein taking advantage of the system to promote her bigoted event).

As you noted, it's less about hard-and-fast rules and more about "a giant segment of the community takes offense to this, so we're not allowing it to occur, at least not in the way you're performing it, any longer."; February 27, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Rufus Opus said...: Seems to me "private exclusionary" is a different way of saying "separate but equal." You're wrestling with something huge, and I don't envy you at all. P-Con is not Equal Opportunity, simple as that.

But it's still a huge pagan event that those discriminated against want to participate in. And you've got a right, imo, to be able to participate in everything at P-Con if you've paid the entrance fee.

If I were organizing the event, I'd go with "All P-Con events are non-discriminatory and all ticket holders are entitled to attend all events. If you want to hold an event that excludes attendees based on race, gender, or planet of origin, please feel free to organize your own event." Then the Dianics would be welcome to have a rite that's open to all, or a private, exclusionary rite somewhere unaffiliated with P-Con.

The way it is now, P-Con is providing an opportunity for a bigoted group to expand its membership under the auspices of "Unity and Diversity." It's not Unified or Diverse to exclude those not like yourself. That's doubleduckspeak.; February 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM
Va. Carper said...: I have been pondering this. I think it is a matter of how the brain is wired. Studies have shown that people think either horizontally or vertically. When the two types talk to each other, they reach a stalemate since either doesn't know how to use the language of the other.

A vertical person thinks in hierarchy (General Motors, conservatives), a horizontal person thinks laterally - horizontal (EDS of Ross Perot, liberals). Neither are incorrect, just different ways of perceiving things. Vertical thinkers if not challenged will dig themselves deeper. Horizontal thinkers if not challenged will go in circles.

I think that perhaps Z is a vertical thinker since she cites the patriarchy in her writings. So having a genetic only woman ritual makes sense and should not be a subject of controversy. She has a hierarchy of women, men, trans (I think). So unless you know how break through that thought process by explaining things vertically, I doubt if this impass will be solved.

As for the transfolk, I believe from the discussion, that they think horizontally or equallaterally. There is no hierarchy - only exclusion or inclusion. If someone could explain Z's decisions horizontally..... same problem.

An example of vertical versus horizontal thinking: How would you solve passengers' long waits for their luggage at an airport?
1. Repair or install a new or faster baggage system.
or
2. Make them walk farther to the baggage area, so when they arrive, their baggage is waiting?

Which makes more sense to you?

(Number One answer is vertical thinking.)
(Number Two - horizontal.)
Both solve the problem of long waits at the baggage claim area.

In answer to the question: What is the mission statement of P-Con? Why does it exist? Does including or excluding Z and her group enhance or detract from that mission or purpose of P-Con? Once that question is answered, then the rest will follow.; February 27, 2012 at 5:01 PM
Anonymous said...: Dianics always were this elitist.; February 27, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Wade said...: Z will never consent to have her rituals confined to a private space. Her whole reason for doing this was to TAKE public space and exclude "transies" and men from it - essentially the same sort of ground-acquisition warfare she claims to despise.

Even during the protest, she gleefully leaped up and announced "All these people are here FOR ME!!!!" even the ones who were against her. It was all about getting attention, regardless of what the actual ritual was.

Holding her rituals in a private room and extending invitations to people individually won't give her the public attention she craves. She'll insist on doing this every year until either she's barred from PantheaCon or until enough people get sick of her shit and stop going.; February 28, 2012 at 7:04 AM
Anonymous said...: I actually have been seeing a whole lot more trans*phobic apologia than I have support for our trans* siblings, but it's very possible you and I move in different blog circles, Kenaz.

In the interest of full disclosure: I'm not trans* I'm Genderqueer, but at best, my dog in this fight is small. And yappy. My personal perspective is that I have no issues with Z. engaging in her own private rituals with her circle, but I think bringing it to PantheaCon... at all... is asking for trouble. Why? Because what you do in your back yard is your own business. What you do as a leader at a convention is the business of everyone at the convention. So if what you're doing as a leader at a convention is being blatantly discriminatory (with a history of trans*phobic hate speech to boot), then yes, you can expect everyone there to comment on your activities.

What it boils down to is this: Z. has the right to worship the way she sees fit. Others have the right to join or shun her as they see fit. That's freedom of religion. The rest of us have a right to call her on the bigotry contained within her religious views. That's freedom of speech. I'm sorry it makes her uncomfortable, but considering that trans* people suffer rates of violence up to 17 times higher than other marginalized groups, and are murdered seven times as often, and which bathroom they use is a matter of public discussion and controversy and they are routinely accused of being liars, pedophiles, perverts, and even Frankenstein monsters, and are discriminated against in employment, housing, and medicine... I think Z. can live with the 'discomfort' of having progressive pagans criticize her hate speech.; February 28, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Chuck said...: Well, I'm no fan of Z but consider this, a real bigot would not care if she were critized. She would just laugh it off.; February 28, 2012 at 9:28 PM