-------------------------------------------- Michfest Dialogue: Where do we go from here? by Margo Schulter -------------------------------------------- ----------------- Table of Contents ----------------- Introduction: The sobering month of April 2015 1. Transgender Lesbianism and its Intersections 2. The "Womon-Born Womon" Policy or Intention: Some background 2.1. Misunderstanding 1: A trans man takes a shower (1999) 2.2. Misunderstanding 2: An unauthorized press release (2006) 2.3. Misunderstanding 3: Troublemakers at Camp Trans (2010) 3. The Michfest Statement of August 18, 2014: How I became involved 4. First Days of Dialogue: Conflicting intentions 4.1. Telling the Story: Some ethical constraints 4.2. Opening Intentions: A spectrum of views 4.3. "Male Socialization" and the Movement for Inclusion 4.4. Sex-caste Ideology: S-SCAB, D-SCAB, and D-SCAM 4.5 "Trans/Cis" Terminology: More tension 4.6. Questions of Safety: On the hurtful edge of the controversy 4.7. When Ambiguity Sows Confusion: Misunderstandings hurt 4.8. Bad News: Do I belong here? 4.9. "Meltdown" and "Reboot" 4.10. Retrospective: Sam Hope's insight on conflict and stereotypes 5. The "Reboot": From open dialogue to slow-motion debate 6. Listening Radically to Lisa Vogel -- and writing her 6.1. Writing Lisa Vogel: The end of a 40 years' conflict? 6.2. Lisa Vogel's Initiative: Rallying the Amazon forces 6.3. Some Sobering and Informative Conversations 6.4. A Basic Dilemma: Are we playing "Intention says"? 6.5. The Limits of Individual Conscience: Schrodinger's (un)welcome 6.6. "Womon-born Womon": A flexible concept? 6.7. Ethical Stress in Mid-September: On both sides of a picket line? 7. An Open Letter on Ending the Boycott, and a Telling Response 7.1. Learning From Others: Fest culture 7.2. Addressing Intra-Lesbian Conflict 7.3. Releasing the Letter 7.4. Conversations: Trans men, Fest autonomy, and missexing 7.5. The Danger of Racial Analogies 7.6. Unhopeful Omens in Allies for Understanding 7.7. The Moment of Truth: An unofficial response 7.8. Leaving the Dialogue 7.9. A Question of Values 8. Fest and Religious Freedom Issues 9. Looking Ahead: Sisterhood in unity and diversity 9.1. Gender Oppression Against and Among Women: Five facets 9.2. Oppressions, Privileges, Vulnerabilities, and Immunities ---------------------------------------------- Introduction: The sobering month of April 2015 ---------------------------------------------- For the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, known as Michfest or simply Fest, the month of April 2015 proved an eventful and indeed fateful one. First, during the second week of the month, three organizations -- National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the LGBTQ Task Force, and the Transadvocate -- removed their signatures from a boycott petition initiated last summer by Equality Michigan demanding that Michfest extend a full welcome to trans women who wish to attend this classic annual gathering centered around Lesbian feminist politics and culture. The three groups explained that their desire for an inclusive Michfest welcoming all women -- as opposed to only "womyn-born womyn" (WBW) or "womyn born female" (WBF) who had lived their entire lives in a female status -- had not changed, but that they saw the boycott as unproductive or even counterproductive as an approach to get constructive negotiations started. Then, on April 21, Lisa Vogel, who had founded Fest in 1976 at the age of 19, made the announcement that this year's Michfest 40 would be the last -- or, at least, that there were currently no plans beyond that event happening this August 4-9. While she had raised open questions near the end of Summer 2014 about whether or how Fest might continue in future years, her April 21 letter was a time of sadness, sisterhood, and mutual consoling for many of us who had been involved on various sides of the inclusion issue. For me, as a Lesbian feminist at age 64 whose roots go back to the same Second Wave tradition which brought forth Michfest, and also as a transsexual who for the last 42 years or so has taken an interest in the issue of trans inclusion within the Lesbian community, Lisa Vogel's announcement that Michfest 40 might well be the last was a somber moment to reflect on two aspects of an online dialogue in which I had participated for 11 weeks last year, from late August to mid-November. The first aspect of this dialogue experience was an attempt to negotiate an inclusive Michfest that would center around and honor the experience of "womyn born female" (WBF) who do live their entire lives in a female status and move through the varied phases and experiences of that journey, keeping the Lesbian feminist focus of Fest undiluted, while also including feminist trans women (many of us Lesbians) as part of the circle of sisterhood. As I'll discuss, the Michfest statement of August 18, 2014 in response to the boycott movement seemed to invite just such a solution, and as a Second Wave feminist I wanted to help Lisa Vogel succeed in such a quest for peace. Secondly, and more broadly, I welcomed the August 18 statement as an invitation to end some four decades of conflict within the Lesbian community as to the participation of transsexual or other transgender Lesbians who were assigned male at birth (AMAB). Having experienced some exclusion myself in 1974-1975 -- although a vastly milder ordeal than that of Sandy Stone and the other women of the Olivia Records collective during the following years -- I envisioned Michfest 40 as a celebration of truth and reconciliation. Here Fest might set an example for the Lesbian community as a whole, ending a destructive conflict and helping us all arrive at some sisterly understanding which would allow room for both mutual recognition and diversity. Looking back on this process may help both in considering some possible lessons for the art of feminist dialogue, such as how stereotypes and defensive reactions can sometimes reinforce each other in not-so-helpful ways; and also in asking where the spirit of Fest, and those of us devoted to it, might go from here. First, though, it may be worthwhile to put the Michfest question in a larger perspective: the encompassing scope of transgender Lesbianism in its various forms, and the many intersections of oppression and solidarity on which it touches. ----------------------------------------------- 1. Transgender Lesbianism and its Intersections ----------------------------------------------- At this point, I should emphasize that the identity of "transgender Lesbian" covers an amazingly vast territory, embracing not only AMAB people who transition into a female (or sometimes a nonbinary or genderqueer) status, but also people assigned female at birth (AFAB) who identity as trans while affirming a Lesbian identity -- genderqueer, bigender, polygender, agender, drag king, etc. While the issue of discrimination within the Lesbian community against AMAB Lesbians goes back to the early 1970's, discrimination against AFAB transgender Lesbians as well as other gender nonconforming members of the community such as those deemed "too Butch" goes back at least as far as the Daughters of Bilitis dress codes of circa 1960. And there are also intersexual people with Differences of Sexual Development (DSD) that don't neatly fit the patriarchal sex binary, who have often been diagnosed at birth and then given a binary AFAB or AMAB status -- some of whom grow up to identity as Lesbians. Traditionally, the imposition on intersex people of a binary assignment at birth was accompanied with the "standard" practice of Intersex Genital Mutilation (IGM) during infancy or early childhood: surgery to "correct" genitals to a more usual female or male appearance, with no possibility of consent or resistance, and no way of knowing how the child's own sense of gender identity and choice of whether or how to seek any body modifications might emerge. Two decades of active struggle by the Intersex Society of North America (ISNA) and other groups have made IGM rarer; but the struggle for intersex self-determination, including recognition of nonbinary gender status for intersex and other people with nonbinary identities, continues. Intersex people, AFAB or AMAB or otherwise, can also be Lesbians in many different ways, with some identifying additionally as transgender. The amazing scope of the Lesbian identity, intersecting or overlapping with the transgender, nonbinary, and intersex communities, adds richness to the expansive concept of feminism with its focus on challenging the patriarchal sex/gender binaries as a central part of the quest for human equality and dignity. Additionally, of course, Lesbianism and feminism intersect with other categories of experience and oppression relevant to the herstory of Fest and our larger movement: race, class, ableism, First World privilege, and so on. As an Ashkenazi Jew whose mother devoted her early adult years before I was born to labor organizing in New York, I got a good dose during my childhood of socialism and feminism, and heard about some anti-Jewish discrimination at social and sports clubs and the like; but certainly didn't experience the prejudice and exclusion that people of color do, as defined in the U.S.A. Another intersecting factor relevant to the Michfest dialogue is that of age or generation, with many older women involved in the process -- as well as some younger ones -- identifying strongly with the Second Wave of feminism that grew in the 1960's and 1970's concurrently with the Civil Rights Movement and the resistance to the Indochina wars. While the tendency of Lesbians and other feminists with white privilege to ignore or talk over feminists of color was a critical flaw of the movement then as now, this makes it all the more important to recognize the vital role of women and Lesbians of color in such groups as the Combahee River Collective in Boston (1974-1980). The Combahee River Collective, named to honor the Combahee River raid in South Carolina during the Civil War organized and led by Harriet Tubman that resulted in the liberation of many slaves, spoke as a strong voice for African American Lesbians and feminists, and articulated in its statement of 1977 the essence of intersectional feminism. The term "intersectional" would be later be defined by the African American scholar Kimberle/ Crenshaw, and the concepts behind it developed by bell hooks and others; but the Combahee River Collective made this vital current of feminism already an integral part of the Second Wave, however much unjustly neglected. -------------------------------------------------------------- 2. The "Womon-Born Womon" Policy or Intention: Some background -------------------------------------------------------------- The first time I focused on Michfest may have been sometime around 1980, while living in San Francisco. Then, as now, I was very interested in medieval and Renaissance European music, some of it composed by women either known or unknown; as a saying went, "Anonymous was often a woman." Around that time I remember seeing a poster that advertised Fest in the Haight-Ashbury district, referring to the event as something growing out of the "ambitious" feminist movement of the 1970's. At least one friend also mentioned that since I was a Lesbian interested in women's music, Michigan was the place to be. Given my previous experience on the East Coast in 1974-1975, I was both curious and concerned about how Michfest might receive transsexual Lesbian feminists -- at least if we were known to be transsexual. During those years, I had received acceptance from some Lesbian and feminist groups, but was asked by one women's center to stop volunteering, which was of course their right; and I heard of how one women's group which had wanted me to perform was pressured to cancel the invitation by certain anti-transsexual activists. Back in that era around 1980 when I learned of Fest, which had started in 1976, the question remained academic, because I did not seriously consider travelling 2000 miles to attend such an event. Perhaps my taste for decentralized socialism or communitarian anarchism made me focus more on local things. But a striking facet of Fest herstory is that these early years, 1976-1990 (Michfest 1-15), were evidently not marked by any open conflict over inclusion of transsexual women, at least not at Fest itself. There was, of course, the very dramatic and destructive campaign of 1976-1978 against Sandy Stone of Olivia Records, a transsexual Lesbian who been invited to join the Olivia collective and won the trust of her sisters. Knowing of her background, they had assisted her in getting trans-related medical care, and were ready to defend her when she was outed by others in the name of feminism. The ugliness of this campaign, in which she was misgendered as a "transsexual man," is well known, ranging up to and including death threats. There were also letters like one published in _Sisters_ (1977) directed against Olivia for its inclusive policy, with Lisa Vogel as one of the signers. Ultimately, Stone decided that she must leave for the good of the collective. However, the first 15 years of Michfest itself saw the quiet participation in this Lesbian-centered community of some transsexual Lesbian performers and listeners. It was not until Michfest 16, in 1991, that an active conflict sadly emerged. The expulsion of Nancy Jean Burkholder, a Lesbian from New Hampshire, under a "womon-born-womon" policy that had not been publicized, marked the start of the controversy. In a statement later that year about the incident, Michfest described Burkholder as a "transsexual man," thus confirming that it still held to the view current in the 1970's that trans women were not women at all, but men, and thus had no place in a women's community. Here I should explain that the phrase in its plural form, spelled "womyn-born womyn," (and intended like the singular spelling "womon" to declare the independence of women from any connection with "man" or "men"), was associated with Michfest as early as 1976-1978, and evidently derived from Adrienne Rich's title, _Of Woman Born_. Rich's theme was the bond between mother and daughter, and the way it could apply to Lesbian women as much as any others -- a theme applicable to Lesbian trans women also. However, as used in a Michfest context, it came to mean women who had been assigned female at birth, raised as girls, and who continued to identify and live as women. From 1991 to the middle of 2014, the conflict took many shapes, with events sometimes determined in good part by random happenings and unintended consequences. My purpose in looking back is not only to give some context for the dialogues of August-November 2014 in which I participated, but to suggest some of the many missed opportunities for other choices which might have led to truth and reconciliation. With Nancy Burkholder's expulsion from Michfest after she had come from New England to share this Fest with her sisters, it was correct to speak of a "ban" on Lesbian or other trans women; Michfest's subsequent statement in 1991 defended the exclusion rather than apologizing for it as a mistake (an apology ultimately made in 2014). However, during the long period of 1992-2005, there were no other expulsions of Lesbian or other trans women simply for being transsexual, although some trans women, especially those engaged in activism on this issue, might at times be asked to leave (with concern sometimes expressed for their safety at Fest) or, if they proclaimed their status at the front gate, denied the sale of a ticket. Finally, by 2006, the "policy" invoked to justify the expulsion of Nancy Burkholder had become an intention: trans women were still unwanted and unwelcome at Fest, but could buy tickets even if they identified themselves as trans women, and would not be asked to leave. During the years 1992-1994, those immediately following Burkholder's exclusion, a group of Lesbian feminists launched the effort which became known as Camp Trans to educate festgoers, known as festies, on gender issues, to invite dialogue, and to move toward a more inclusive event. Lesbian trans women and their partners, transgender AFAB Butch Lesbians, feisty Lesbian Avengers and intersex people were all involved in this dialogue, which some supporters of Lisa Vogel's position remember as peaceful and respectful. Less happy were some of the actions and reactions of 1999 and later, not often enough recognized as part of the "fog of conflict" which may prompt escalating tensions or unfortunate responses that neither side may have anticipated. Here I will give three examples. ---------------------------------------------------------- 2.1. Misunderstanding 1: A trans man takes a shower (1999) ---------------------------------------------------------- In 1999, as the Camp Trans movement revived, a trans man and peace officer named Tony Barreto-Neto who had transitioned and undergone a phalloplasty after a long history in the Lesbian community, came to Fest. Active in an organization of that time called Transgender Officers Protect and Serve (TOPS), he felt that the abuse and violence he had endured as a gender nonconforming dyke before his transition made his presence at Fest appropriate. However, there was one complication: "my Jewish mother's upbringing," which had taught him the importance of cleanliness -- which included taking a shower after his long journey to Fest. As Barreto-Neto, then a Florida deputy sheriff, tells it, he explained his anatomical situation and asked each woman present if she consented, getting the go-ahead from all. Unfortunately, it seems as if some other women who were not part of this process then happened on the scene in the Twilight Zone -- an area of Fest known for its tolerant and sometimes uninhibited spirit -- and perceived the event with some understandable trepidation as what would be widely reported as "pre-operative trans women exposing their genitals." This misperception, and the fear and escalation of tensions it triggered, may have lent fuel to perceptions of trans women wishing to attend Fest as "colonizers for the patriarchy" or "rape-y." In 2000, as a reaction, Fest temporarily adopted a policy of excluding would-be ticket buyers who asserted trans identities judged to be in conflict with the "womon-born womon" policy. ------------------------------------------------------------- 2.2. Misunderstanding 2: An unauthorized press release (2006) ------------------------------------------------------------- During subsequent years, however, the restrictive admission policy of 2000 was seen as a response to the heightened security concerns of 1999, rather than normal practice. By 2006, Michfest sold a ticket to a self-declared trans woman, a step which could have led to delicate negotiations on how policy might be reformulated to fit this new reality. Unfortunately, another cycle of action-reaction was quickly set afoot. Activists at Camp Trans, excited about the news of the ticket sale, circulated a press release announcing that Michfest had dropped its "womyn-born womyn" policy -- something which, of course, only Lisa Vogel and the Michfest leadership had the standing to do. This may have created a situation where Fest leadership felt a need decisively not only to correct the press release but to reassert its autonomy and control over its own policy. Thus on August 22, 2006, Michfest replied with a public statement making clear not only that the alleged change of policy had not taken place, but that trans women remained unwanted and unwelcome. This famous sentence sums up the attitudes I found still widespread in the later summer and fall of 2014: "If a transwoman purchased a ticket, this represents nothing more than that womon choosing to disrespect the stated intention of this Festival." Here the varying spellings of "transwoman" (as a single word) and "womon" quote the original. By referring to a trans woman -- even one so misguided in the official Michfest view as to purchase a ticket and so disrespect the "intention" that only AFAB women attend -- as a "womon," the Fest leadership signalled that it regarded trans women as true women, and legitimate participants in women's communities and movements generally. No longer was it true, as in the Sandy Stone controversy of 1976-1978 and the statement after the expulsion of Nancy Jean Burkholder in 1991, that trans women were unwelcome for the simple reason that they were considered actually to be men. Instead, the special experience of "womyn who were born as, and have lived their lives as, womyn," was cited as the basis for "a valid gender identity" -- and one defining the purpose of Fest. Other passages in this landmark 2006 statement underscore both sides of the new Fest position: a recognition of trans women as women; and their continued unwelcome at Fest. On the first point: As sisters in struggle, we call upon the transwomen's community to meditate upon, recognize and respect the differences in our shared experiences and our group identities even as we stand shoulder to shoulder as women, and as members of the greater queer community. On the second point: There are many opportunities in the world to share space with the entire queer community, and other spaces that welcome all who define themselves as female. Within the rich diversity now represented by the broader queer community, we believe there is room for all affinity groups to enjoy separate, self-determined, supportive space if they choose.... The Michigan Womyn's Music Festival respects the transsexual community as integral members of the greater queer community. We call upon the transsexual community in turn to respect and support womyn-born womyn space and to recognize that a need for a separate womyn-born womyn space does not stand at odds with recognizing transwomyn as part of the larger diversity of the womyn's community. These two points, and the tension between them, lead to a third theme of the 2006 statement that has become an enduring feature of official Michfest policy: a policy of "no gender policing" that explains why trans women, although unwelcome and unwanted, will not be refused a ticket or removed from Fest: From its inception the Festival has been home to womyn who could be considered gender outlaws, either because of their sexual orientation (lesbian, bisexual, polyamorous, etc.) or their gender presentation (butch, bearded, androgynous, femme -- and everything in between). Many womyn producing and attending the Michigan Festival are gender variant womyn. Many of the younger womyn consider themselves differently gendered, many of the older womyn consider themselves butch womyn, and the dialogue is alive and well on the Land as our generational mix continues to inform our ongoing understanding of gender identity and the range of what it means to be female. Michigan provides one of the safest places on the planet for womyn who live and present themselves to the world in the broadest range range of gender expression. As Festival organizers, we refuse to question anyone's gender. We instead ask that womon-born womon be respected as a valid gender identity, and that the broad queer and queer-diverse communities respect our commitment to one week each year for womyn-born womyn to gather. From the perspective of a Lesbian feminist trans woman, this statement might introduce new and poignant tensions. Although the term "genderqueer" isn't used, by 2006 this was indeed the self-description of many of the "differently gendered" AFAB people embraced as within the proper scope of Fest -- people identifying in part as "womyn" or "females," but often preferring nonbinary pronouns such as ze/hir or they/their. In such a diverse and pluralistic gathering, why should the birth assignment of trans womyn, now recognized as a legitimate part of the "womyn's community," present such a continuing issue? In 2014, when I participated in dialogue largely addressing these same points eight years later, some photographs from Fest quickly confirmed the amazing "range of gender expression" embraced there. Why shouldn't feminist trans women fit in? Given that AFAB women and genderqueers are obviously a very large majority of those who wish to attend Fest, and trans women a relatively small minority, why continue to regard members of that one minority group of women unwelcome, and showing "disrespect" for the event, by seeking to add to its diversity? There remains a tantalizing "what-if": What if that Camp Trans press release claiming to announce a new Michfest policy had not been issued, leaving space and time for more dialogue about the meaning of the new ticketing and "no gender policing" policies? My hope when I joined the dialogue in 2014 was to help make that possible world a belated reality. ----------------------------------------------------------- 2.3. Misunderstanding 3: Troublemakers at Camp Trans (2010) ----------------------------------------------------------- A third crisis that may have turned the Michfest conflict in a less desirable direction was a series of acts of vandalism and sabotage at Michfest 35 (2010) celebrated by a group of self-declared "anarchists" and evidently carried out at least in good part by a mentally ill person who was not a trans woman. In fact, some trans women who had come for the purpose of seeking a full welcome at Fest felt threatened enough at Camp Trans to leave out of concerns for their own safety. During the dialogue process in which I participated, a woman who was present at Fest described how scary the sabotage was, including the cutting of water lines and the writing of crude misogynist graffiti that any sane feminist -- Lesbian and/or trans or otherwise -- would see as an act of patriarchal oppression. I should add that no sane anarchist -- including such strong women as Emma Goldman (a bisexual) and April Carter, for example -- would take part in the kind of troublemaking for its own sake that happened in 2010. While it has little connection to the disagreements between feminist women at the heart of the Michfest conflict, this incident may illustrate a factor making Fest different than many other feminist controversies: the real security concerns of a women's event held in a rural area. Over the decades, Fest has faced threats ranging from men with binoculars ogling Fest women and having unknown intentions which festies reasonably feared might turn violent (with some sisters having machetes on hand for self-defense if worst came to worst); to baseless allegations of child sexual abuse by reactionary groups supporting such causes as "heterosexual rights." The cordial relations built over the years between Fest women and residents of the surrounding Michigan communities did not make obsolete some real security concerns in the quest for a safe women's space. Thus the "heated circumstances" of a year like 1999 (to quote the 2006 statement) would present elements of fear and apprehension not present, for example, when the Lavender Menace staged its famous guerrilla theater at the Second Congress to Unite Women in 1970 as a zap against the Lesbophobia then widespread in the feminist movement. The ugly and frightening events of 2010 would have this effect yet more dramatically, especially if seen as reflecting the attitudes and purposes of a substantial portion of the trans women's community, as opposed to a few opportunistic troublemakers using the conflict for their own purposes. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 3. The Michfest Statement of August 18, 2014: How I became involved ------------------------------------------------------------------- Sadly, the troublemaking of 2010 may have set the tone for some ugly episodes at Fest in 2011 and 2012. These included alleged stalking incidents in which both AFAB and trans women were harassed and physically intimidated, sometimes at late night hours when the peace and safety of Fest -- the freedom to walk and enjoy the beauty of the Land without fear -- is especially sacred. There were also "T-shirt wars" where some women wore T-shirts proclaiming "Trans Womyn Belong Here," and others wore red as a symbol that only "womyn born womyn" or WBW were welcome. There were also "Wanted" posters carrying the positive message that AFAB gender variant womyn were especially welcome, but with not-so-obscure implications that trans women were unwelcome, as the 2006 statement had, of course, clearly proclaimed. In 2013, a boycott effort led by Red Durkin and supported by prominent Michfest performers such as the Indigo Girls sought to resolve the conflict by full inclusion of trans women. At the end of July, 2014, Emily Dievendorf of Equality Michigan, a bisexual woman known for her antiracist work and support of affirmative action, joined with others in initiating a new boycott effort with the same goal. Other groups joined, notably including the National Black Justice Coalition, an African-American LGBT organization with a major focus on "the war on Black trans bodies." When I learned of this new boycott petition, I signed it -- my first direct act of involvement in the Michfest controversy I had followed, on and off, as a spectator, starting around 2005. That was in early August, but by around August 20, I learned of a new development that made me eager for dialogue that could lead to a reasonably swift and sisterly resolution: a new statement from the Michfest community, dated August 18. Up to this point, having followed the many Michfest statements over the years, I had at no point doubted that trans women were unwelcome and unwanted, however crudely or subtly this reality was expressed. And I was not interested in attending such an event where I would not be welcome, as ready as I was to support awareness and education on the implications of such exclusion -- which was what I saw as the purpose of the boycott. However, the August 18 statement included some language which, at least to me, radically changed this situation. In fact, at first, I got the impression that Lisa Vogel and Emily Dievendorf might have released joint statements announcing an end to the conflict. Then, reading the Michfest statement and Dievendorf's response, I realized that the dispute was still ongoing -- but, it seemed to me, on dramatically transformed terrain. After addressing the expulsion from Fest of Nancy Jean Burkholder in 1991, and declaring that it was "wrong," the statement emphasizes a radically different reality prevailing now: The truth is, trans womyn and trans men attend the Festival, blog about their experiences, and work on crew. In the first days of the online Michfest dialogue I was about to join, I would often quote these words, which were not unreasonably described on at least one blog as "bragging" about the central role of trans women at Fest. However, as I found on reflection over the last week of August, these were not the most decisive words of the statement. At the heart of my perceptions were a few sentences that I believe will speak to many women of goodwill: Michfest is widely known as a predominantly lesbia community. This does not mean that heterosexual womyn, bisexual womyn, or those who do not share this identity are not present or welcome. But for a week, we collectively experience a lesbian-centered world; we experience what it feels like to be in a community defined by lesbian culture. There are trans womyn and trans men who attend and work at the Festival who participate in the Michfest community in this same spirit - as supporters of, rather than detractors from, our female-focused culture. Parsing these sentences is not difficult. The first paragraph notes the very well-known fact that all AFAB women and genderqueers, regardless of sexual orientation, are indeed "present" and "welcome" at the Lesbian-centered Fest. The implicit condition of their welcome, also neatly expressed in this paragraph, is that they come to support Fest as "a community defined by lesbian culture." The second paragraph declares that there are trans women, and also trans men, who attend or indeed even serve on crew at Fest "in this same spirit -- as supporters of, rather than detractors from, our female-focused culture." The clear implication is that trans women who come in the "same spirit" as the AFAB women addressed in the previous paragraph are likewise not only "present" but "welcome." Over the next weeks, as I'll discuss, I had occasion to read and reread these words many times -- was I somehow reading too much into them? Above all, one phrase captured my attention as a basis for saying that I was reading the lines themselves, as opposed to what might be between them: the declaration that some trans women can and do come to Fest "as supporters of, rather than detractors from, our female-focused culture." Can a trans woman simultaneously be a net positive or asset to Fest, a supporter of it rather than a detractor from it, and yet be an unwanted intruder or, to borrow from the 2006 statement, someone showing "disrespect" for Fest? More generally, could such a trans woman be making a positive contribution to Fest, and yet be less than welcome? As a lay advocate against the death penalty in the U.S.A. who often deals with complex legal and constitutional issues, I wanted to appreciate the language of Lisa Vogel and the Michfest leadership very carefully -- but without getting too legalistic and missing the spirit of the words I have quoted in a search for every fine nuance of phrasing. My reactions were twofold. First, I was now an aspiring festie! If Michfest wanted to include feminist trans women, then surely as a Lesbian feminist of the Second Wave I wanted to attend and support an event I knew had been having problems getting adequate attendance and financial support, likely quite apart from the trans issue. Secondly, I was glad I had supported the Equality Michigan boycott petition, an obvious catalyst for the August 18 statement. I remember the famous statement by escaped slave and African-American activist Frederick Douglass: "Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and it never will." (Versions of this quote vary a bit.) As I was soon to learn, this is a favorite quote on both or all sides of the Michfest controversy. My next step was reaching out and making connections on my way to an inclusive Michfest 40 in August of 2015. Within a week, I had gotten in touch with a longtime Michfest participant and supporter who favors inclusion and suggested that I join an online Michfest community dialogue called "Allies in Understanding." ------------------------------------------------- 4. First Days of Dialogue: Conflicting intentions ------------------------------------------------- The dialogue began, fittingly, with affirmations of sisterhood and trust. Through the decades, I have experienced and valued this sense of mutual recognition and affirmation in many feminist groups and settings. With Allies in Understanding, the challenge was to find this sense of face-to-face meeting and joining hands in an online dialogue involving something like 300 women. To me it felt very real, and others expressed this sense of a concrete meeting also -- even if we were encountering each other in cyberspace rather than at Fest, where Allies in Understanding happens as a workshop where women may literally join hands. One of the facilitators invited each of us to express, in not more than three or four sentences, what we hoped to gain from this process. Such goals included peace, a hearing of each other's truths, a deeper sense of understanding of the issues; and, for some, a restoring of the trust and sisterhood they felt no longer prevailed at Fest. Inevitably, many of the comments also reflected the different places where people were at in terms of Fest policy, and more specifically what has become known as "the intention." Traditionally, this term has been shorthand for the understanding that only AFAB women should attend, and that trans women who do so are violating a boundary by failing to respect AFAB-only space. The 2006 statement I addressed above at some length remains the clearest and in my view most candid expression of what "the intention" continues to mean for lots of women in this discussion, whether they desire to keep it or change it. Thus a number of women expressed their support for the intention, but their desire to engage in dialogue with trans women and better understand our experience. Others spoke their desire for an inclusive Fest. It was evident to me that the encounter and dialogue process itself was taken very seriously and cherished by sisters on all sides, something that makes the difficulties in the process that I'll describe all the more sad. There was also a middle ground on this "intention" question. One striking expression of it was a statement by one woman that trans women are women who deserve validity and solidarity, but do not necessarily need to be "openly invited" to Fest. What that bespoke to me was a feeling that trans women at Fest don't need to be a special issue: we should just attend as the women we are, and belong. My own statement explained that I was joining the dialogue "now that the August 18 statement from Michfest has shown me that I am a festie." The next few days would send me a not-so-subtle message that I needed to reevaluate my optimistic assessment of that statement and what it might mean for the future of Fest. ------------------------------------------------ 4.1. Telling the Story: Some ethical constraints ------------------------------------------------ In describing what happened with Allies in Understanding, I am bound by a set of rules protecting the privacy of all participants. Thus I will avoid identifying participants or sharing quotes linked to any specific woman. At the same time, I consider what happened in the dialogue as absolutely vital to an appreciation of how good intentions can lead to needless misunderstandings and conflict; and how, more positively, we can seek inclusive women's gatherings with many shades of focus and emphasis to bring us together in sisterhood. One disadvantage of an online dialogue, especially one involving a very large number of women, was the absence of any convenient device to let people take turns in listening and speaking, with equal participation as a central value. Indeed there were threads where each woman was invited to make one, and only one, contribution. However, when discussion got underway about a controversial topic, there was no close equivalent of the familiar ritual in a small feminist group of going around a circle, or passing back and forth some object for the women who had the floor to hold or place beside herself. Especially in a conversation with intense levels of disagreement about some very basic issues of identity and purpose, things could easily get out of hand, as they did in the judgment of the facilitators themselves. This relative breakdown in solidarity, coupled with some frustrating misunderstandings which defensiveness on various sides tends very much to breed, is a story I will tell as best I can while respecting the privacy of the participants. The facilitators themselves made an heroic effort to nurture and safeguard a process with respect and dignity for all, cautioning that we would hear "hard truths" while stepping in whenever they sensed that things were getting too personal in a judgmental way. Perhaps one title for this saga might be: "When dubious policies trap good people." -------------------------------------------- 4.2. Opening Intentions: A spectrum of views -------------------------------------------- From the introductory statements we were each invited to offer about what we sought from this process, and some of the first threads, I could get a sense of where women were coming from: much of it not unexpected from the many forums I had read in previous weeks and months; and one item of omission I might not have predicted. In this new dialogue, and also in the August 18 statement, an updated term should be noted. Traditionally, the intended audience for Fest has been identified as "womyn-born womyn" (WBW); but an understanding that women are not born with the gender identity of "woman" (or "womon") has led to the current equivalent "women born female" (WBF). Both terms were used freely. Another possible term would be Women Assigned Female At Birth (WAFAB), which has the advantage of being an easily pronounceable acronym; but WBW and WBF prevailed. As anticipated, many women expressed their support for "the intention" as is: that is, for a WBF-only gathering, however directly or diplomatically framed. This approach drew a very clear boundary: anyone who proposed that trans women should be welcome at Fest was proposing to "change the intention," as opposed to suggesting a fair interpretation of current policy. Others advocated that Fest should simply welcome all women, with trans issues as much a focus as the issues of any other group of women. The efforts of the group Trans Womyn Belong Here (TWBH), both at Fest and in year-around campaigns to build support, typified this perspective. Members and supporters, both WBF and trans women, wore TWBH T-Shirts and sometimes staged demonstrations to make clear their commitment to full inclusion. As the August 18 statement itself had suggested, there was also a third position that many of us were drawn to: keeping Fest a "WBF-centered" event focusing on the whole life cycle of women who live their entire lives as female, with trans women, Lesbian or otherwise, welcome as sisters who share many but not all WBF experiences. There were women who strongly opposed the boycotts and other forms of "transactivism" which they saw as targeting the Lesbian community, and yet very much favored the idea of a feminist trans woman coming "as a woman, period." With the benefit of 20-20 hindsight, I wonder if one good facilitation strategy at this point might not have been to have grouped women according our views along this spectrum, however crudely, and then subdivided us into smaller groups where we could start by sharing ideas with likeminded sisters. That would have started off the process with a focus on points of relative agreement, and permitted the cyberspace equivalent of feminist small group process, with tools like taking turns in speaking and going around a circle available to maximize equal participation. I was also aware of the vulnerabilities that any change must involve, even the most compassionately managed change. Many women, I knew, had for decades looked on Fest as a "WBW/WBF-only" event, a safe space free, at least in theory, both from men and from trans women who for some time, and at least to some degree, had enjoyed male privilege. A blog lamenting that the August 18 statement had effectively made Fest the "Michigan Men's Music Festival," while hardly representative of even the most zealous supporters of the intention in the traditional sense, reflected real fear, and also mourning for a safe space which would no longer seem such a secure haven for healing. Thus I saw it as my responsibility to support the August 18 statement, emphasize that I was interested in attending as a Lesbian feminist and supporting the traditional Fest agenda; and compared a trans woman's situation to that of an immigrant who can become a naturalized citizen, but cannot have exactly the experience or perspective as a natural-born citizen. This brings us to the item of omission: few participants seemed as concerned with the August 18 statement as I was. Rather than viewing it as a watershed document -- and one very artfully proclaiming trans women's inclusion in a WBF-centered event in the feisty way that is Lisa Vogel's trademark -- women often took it as yet another restatement of a familiar status quo. The most problematic thing about that status quo is that there was little consensus on just what it was or what it meant for feminist trans women interested in Fest. -------------------------------------------------------- 4.3. "Male socialization" and the movement for inclusion -------------------------------------------------------- One opinion I encountered in those first days was that the very desire of trans women for inclusion at Fest -- a desire for it to be anything other than a WBF-only event -- was a reflection of a sense of "entitlement," and more specifically of "male socialization." The assumption seemed to be: "Real women don't argue with the boundaries that other women set." Certainly it is true that there are methods of political assertion, or better aggression, that have no place in a feminist movement, although some WBF and trans women have used them at times. The threats of violence or even death directed against Sandy Stone and other members of the Olivia collective in the late 1970's, as well as threats of some trans women in recent years on social media (ranging from slogans like #DieCisScum or #DIAF or "Die In A Fire" to more concrete threats of physical harm), do reflect a patriarchal mindset. None of us are immune, and the facilitators of Allies In Understanding commendably sought to prevent anything even approaching what a famous code of the Civil Rights Movement called "violence of fist, tongue, or heart." However, struggles for inclusion within the feminist movement, sometimes assertive and uncompromising, are part of our First Wave and Second Wave heritage, as well as a feature of intersectional feminism in its newer forms. Thus, a century ago, Ida B. Wells was sometimes silenced as an African-American woman who fought racism and lynching as well as the sexism that still denied women the ballot in most of the U.S.A. And in 1970, there was the famous zap by Radicalesbians at the Second Congress to Unite Women that I have mentioned (Section 2.3 above), an act of nonviolent intervention serving as a likely inspiration for the later Transsexual Menace, and also for the likewise in-your-face Lesbian Avengers with a militant and trans-inclusive agenda. The struggle within Fest itself during the 1980's to make room for what I might term "consensual sexual diversity," including niches for Lesbians with an affinity for leather, fully informed BSDM, strap-ons, and the like, was not always one of amicably drawn and instantly accepted boundaries. However, sometimes tense and heated arguments ultimately led to a reasonable accommodation of live and let live. What I learned is that the "male socialization" argument has a chilling effect especially on those of us trans women who identify strongly as feminist. It raises the question: "Am I somehow violating feminist process, or doing something wrong?" This chilling effect is hardly impossible to overcome; otherwise, I would not have taken part in the dialogue, or would have left it during those first days instead of staying with it for 11 weeks. But it does quickly make any search for a feminist synthesis or consensus very difficult. Given that Michfest is a private space, and that my life hardly depends on travelling 2000 miles to an event for one week each year, I must ask: "Is having my advocacy of what I see as a reasonable compromise reduced to `male socialization' really worth it?" After all, I am not seeking inclusion as a Lesbian at rallies or other gatherings of the National Organization for Marriage, which is, of course, dedicated to preventing Lesbian marriage. Indeed, it is my "feminist socialization" that drew me into the dialogue. Lisa Vogel, my sister, had released a statement inviting me to attend Fest as one of the "supporters of, not detractors from, our female-focused culture." Was there not a joyful humility, the best of sisterly cooperation, to be found in accepting this invitation? Some women strongly objected to the "male socialization" argument as a logical fallacy, focusing not on the advantages or disadvantages of inclusion, but on the supposed motives or flaws of those of us who sought it. However, this kind of ad hominem or "against the person" argument (Latin _homo_ embracing humans of all genders) reflected deeper feelings and commitments that quickly took center stage. --------------------------------------------------- 4.4. Sex-caste Ideology: S-SCAB, D-SCAB, and D-SCAM --------------------------------------------------- In these early discussions, as also on some websites defending traditional Fest policy, two acronyms are in use: SSCAB or Subordinate Sex Caste At Birth; and DSCAB or Dominant Sex Caste at Birth. In practice, these terms often refer to "SSCAB women" or WBF; and "DSCAB women" or trans women. As I didn't realize on first seeing these abbreviations, they are meant to be pronounced S-SCAB and D-SCAB, a style of acronym that perhaps my mom's tradition of labor organizing made it harder for me to recognize, as I quipped to the group. These abbreviations are often used to defend traditional Fest policy: while WBF or S-SCAB are oppressed from birth, trans women or D-SCAB are privileged, and their very desire to attend Fest signals a certain sense of "entitlement" that anyone socialized female from birth would, presumably, never exhibit. Thus the very movement for inclusion becomes its own refutation, and in some sense the essence of patriarchal privilege against which Fest was designed as a refuge. Those following this analysis often can and do compare trans women seeking acceptance at Fest to women with white privilege seeking to enter and find acceptance in Women of Color (WOC) space: the issue becomes simply whether any kind of separate and safe space for women in an oppressed group is permissible. Given the fact that Fest has a Women of Color area, this analogy is not so surprising. Below I address the perilous nature of racial analogies as used by various women including myself in this dialogue (Section 7.5), an important lesson for me on why they are usually best avoided. The S-SCAB/D-SCAB concept does, of course, present one aspect of the truth: trans women are assigned male at birth, and do experience some privileges growing out of this fact. While we also may model, during childhood, aspects of female identity or roles, our process of female socialization in the usual sense begins not from birth, but from the time that we transition. Our experience of oppression specifically for being trans, or more generally for being gender nonconforming, makes this intersection of privilege and disadvantage an often complex one. However, use of this binary S-SCAB/D-SCAB concept to declare all trans women unwelcome at Fest as an encompassing Lesbian feminist event otherwise intended for the women's community generally may be seen as incorporating the patriarchal myth of a sex/gender binary into feminism itself. From what I would consider a fruitful feminist perspective, the myth of a sex/gender binary is exactly that: the misunderstanding that there are only two "real" categories of either biological sex or psychological and social gender, and that these categories are somehow immutable. The realities of biological intersex as a continuum; of nonbinary or genderqueer identities (recognized by Fest in the 2006 statement, for example); and of medical, social, and legal transitions from one "caste" to another, call for a more flexible approach to how we should live as feminist women, as opposed to how the patriarchy would like us to categorize each other. A possible contradiction of the S-SCAB/D-SCAB approach as a justification for deeming feminist trans women unwelcome at Fest is the fact that some women holding to it are quite comfortable with the idea of trans men being present in this all-women's space. Such men, of course, if their identities are accepted, experience male socialization and male privilege as ongoing realities. This does not mean that they cannot be good feminists, but it does mean that they are no longer women. To coin a new acronym, we might refer to this group at Fest as the Dominant Sex Class At Michigan, or D-SCAM, suggesting the spurious nature of conclusions drawn from imposing patriarchal sex caste concepts on the feminist movement itself. Having said this, I would immediately add that trans men can play an invaluable role in many feminist communities: for example, there is a Trans and/or Women Action Camp (TWAC) that welcomes all people who identify as either women and/or trans. As the dialogue made clear to me, we have something else on hand here: biological essentialism, which sees sex assignment at birth as the only or main determining factor in sex/gender identity, at least for purposes of Fest. Since trans men are assigned female at birth, their chosen identity does not really count: regrettably, in conversations both within and outside the Allies in Understanding process, I witnessed both the missexing of trans women as "male," and the missexing or misgendering of trans men. ----------------------------------------- 4.5 "Trans/Cis" Terminology: More tension ----------------------------------------- One of the first threads after our online introductions concerned how some WBF participants feel the term "cis," in the sense of "nontrans" (from the Latin contrast between "cis-" or on the near side, and "trans-" or on the far side) as erasing their born-female identity or attributing to them some "privilege" that they feel no woman has under patriarchy. This conversation highlighted some of the divisions and seismic faults to be found within our community, and revealed some sore points of gender politics to which I listened carefully. Surveying some web discourse had already taught me that "cis" is a loaded word for many feminists, and it is not a term of choice for me unless a woman chooses it for herself, in which case I regard it as quite valid. Some Butch women were quite outspoken about how they can identity with neither "trans," which would imply some desire to transition away from their identity as women and females; or "cis," which implies to them gender conformity or even what one woman summed up by the telling acronym "Comfortable In Skin." We heard stories of the restroom questioning and dilemmas faced by Butches, and sometimes by other women who for whatever reasons relating to their bodies or gender expression have been accorded "freak" status by society at large, or in a given community -- hardly the normalcy and everyday acceptance which "cis" can easily imply. One transgender Lesbian of the nonbinary AFAB persuasion expressed the view that Butch Lesbians fit within the trans* umbrella -- a flexible sense of trans* also embracing some Femmes. This was a perspective I had not heard before, and stretched my horizons a bit as an old-school transsexual Lesbian feminist for whom "trans" generally implied some kind of transition in legal or social gender identity, often although not always accompanied by some medical transition (hormones, and frequently surgery). It wasn't so surprising to hear the Butch women who had been most critical of "cis" assure us that they had no desire at all to identify with "trans" either. Another view was that my proposal for "nontrans" as a more neutral description -- or actually the old status quo which "cis" was introduced to change -- tended to make "trans" the norm! The main lesson I got out of this exchange is that for too many women, at least in a community like Michfest, "cis" is itself a trigger, tending to give the impression that self-identified Butch Lesbians, or other gender variant women who don't feel that "trans" fits them, are having their oppression marginalized or minimized. There are other complications I've since considered, like a point made by intersex activists such as Hida Viloria and Cary Gabriel Costello. It's very doubtful that intersex people, whether they stay in their assigned binary sex/gender or transition elsewhere, can ever, in the setting of a patriarchal and binarist society, enjoy the degree of congruity that "cis" implies. That's another question, of course. While this conversation was in progress, I also saw a very disturbing report that one AFAB Lesbian had been told by a trans woman: "I'm more of a woman than you are!" In this context, it was pretty clear to me that the intended meaning was: "I conform to prevailing social norms for a woman better than you do!" -- hardly a feminist perspective. This had me quite upset, and I expressed my anger and sense of solidarity with the woman at whom this remark had been directed. No woman should be devalued, and invidious comparisons should be avoided between sisters anywhere on or off the Butch/Femme continuum. With discussions like this, there seemed to me such an obvious and welcoming middle ground, if that's the term for it: recognize that as women we are all oppressed in different ways, embrace each other's vulnerabilities, resolve to use the relative immunities of our diverse situations to help each other, and celebrate together. But it seemed that too many years and decades of conflict had made such a simple solution almost impossible in practice. ---------------------------------------------------------------- 4.6. Questions of Safety: On the hurtful edge of the controversy ---------------------------------------------------------------- The realm of feminism, bringing together as it does questions of sex and politics, tends to inspire intense conflicts. From the struggle in the first years of the Second Wave for Lesbian inclusion in mainstream Women's Liberation, to the "Lesbian sex wars" of the 1980's over consensual BDSM and related issues, to the recognition of bisexual women and genderqueer people, sisterhood has known its share of sibling rivalry. However, with the controversy about trans women being welcome at Fest, there was another dimension to the question: the question of safety at various levels, some of which raised the issue of exactly how deep the affirmation in Fest statements since 2006 that "trans womyn are womyn" really went. A main objection to changing the "WBF-only" interpretation of the intention was that this would destroy the "safe space" that Michfest had always provided for women traumatized by child abuse or sexual assault, or simply overwhelmed by the burdens of living under the patriarchy for 51 weeks a year. Here I saw and painfully felt an irony that Fest has never quite resolved, at least in my experience. The May 9, 2014 statement of Michfest, which I certainly would not take as expressing an inclusive policy, affirms this fact: Trans womyn and transmen have always attended this gathering. Some attend wanting to change the intention, while others feel the intention includes them. The August 18 statement makes a yet more specific assertion: [W]e reiterate that Michfest recognizes trans womyn as womyn -- and they are our sisters. We do not fear their presence among us, a false claim repeatedly made. From my experience in those first days of discussion about how a clear welcome for Lesbian or other feminist trans women might compromise or indeed destroy the "safety" of Fest, and negate the whole purpose of the space, these words were at best an aspiration of Fest leadership rather than a clear reality on the ground. Further, I saw little commitment on the part of Fest leadership to address safety concerns in a way that would make the August 18 statement more of a reality, or to distinguish between feelings of suspicion or fear which any of us might have, and a reasoned basis for policymaking in a community of mutually supportive women. An especially ironic paradox of the status quo I wanted to address was that, as Lisa Vogel candidly acknowledged in the May 9 statement, there was nothing preventing any trans woman from attending Fest and introducing whatever safety concerns that might entail. Indeed, the trans women who felt excluded by the intention, at least in its pre-August 18 reading, were those of us unwilling either to attend knowing that we were unwelcome, or to stretch the meaning of WBW or WBF far enough so that we could claim the intention applied to us. In fact one supporter of the traditional intention, Victoria Brownworth, proposed exactly that kind of resolution of conscience in an article I quoted during this general part of the dialogue: So I have to ask this question of transgender women who want to be at MWMF: If you identify as female, then why are you fighting with other women every August? Why can't you come to MWMF like other women to revel in the 100% femaleness and celebrate with music and dancing and being playful without the presence of men? My own answer, included in the same comment as the quote: "That would for me be no problem at all!" Indeed, my reading of the August 18 statement, which would grow more confident in the next few days, was along pretty much the same lines. To such a resolution, there was one main barrier: the women in this dialogue who did express apprehensions about safety if it were made clear that feminist trans women coming to Fest were not "boundary violators" (a characterization I would hear often) but rather "supporters of, rather than detractors from, our female-focused culture." To these women, birth assignment was clearly the key to safety. One of them put it quite directly: she instinctively tries to determine a person's birth sex, and if it's male, she feels precisely the kind of apprehension that she comes to Fest specifically to avoid; otherwise, there wouldn't be a point in enduring the more rigorous aspects of Fest camping for a week. Finding a sense of security from an "intention" acknowledged to be honored often in the breach, combined with a rather determined resistance to defining boundaries that might sort out how trans women could behave at Fest so as to support rather than detract from its WBF-centered agenda, was a stance that reminded me of nothing so much as resistance to marriage equality, with the arguments about as reasonable. Thus a state might be well aware of Lesbian couples, and of the fact that its laws authorized these couples to adopt children -- like April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse of Hazel Park in Michigan, who live not far from some very supportive festies I have been honored to meet and know through this dialogue. However, the state insists that redefining its "intention" by issuing a Lesbian couple a marriage license, and so providing a stable framework of expectations, would somehow "weaken family values." The "boundary violator" label applied to trans women could take on various shadings of disapproval, some touching rather directly on questions of safety. In its mildest form, a trans woman attending Fest was an insensitive person rather like a gatecrasher who simply insists on attending a party, or maybe every party in the neighborhood, even though uninvited. This sounds like more like a nuisance than a threat to safety in the most direct sense, but the analogies got far worse. The argument that the desire of trans women to attend Fest reflected "male socialization" sometimes became more explicit: such trans women, individually or at least as a collective movement, were very much like men who refused to take "No" for an answer -- with our campaigns for inclusion rather like sexual assault. Another metaphor, not so sexually explicit, compared us to burglars entering a house through an open window -- the "open window" being the "no gender policing" policy at Fest consistently declared since 2006. One of the saddest moments of this whole discussion was the statement of a trans woman that she did not want to come to Fest if this would be taken as making the Land "tainted." That any woman would feel a need to make such a statement warned me that there were very serious problems in this community beyond the usual stresses and strains of feminist politics. The term "taint" suggests to me some kind of gender untouchability or uncleanliness. In the marriage equality cases, we have learned to call such a view of LGBTQIA people animus in the sense of bias, whether conscious or simply ignorant. Here I could not agree with my transsexual sister that our presence could "taint" the Land, although I concurred in her result that if such attitudes prevailed to the extent we experienced in the dialogue, and reflected the views of leadership, then we should not attend Fest. For me, it was a question of observing Fest's policy -- if it should really be so despite the August 18 statement -- by engaging in precisely the boycott that the policy made morally incumbent on me. That was a sad prospect, and before I would submit to it, I felt that I must first seek any opportunity to clarify the meaning of the August 18 statement so that both other trans women taking it at its reasonable face value, and supporters of the boycott, might better assess the real-world situation. But to cap the drama of those first days of dialogue -- for me, something like 72 hours in all, I might guess -- there was yet another painful aspect of Fest policy as it played out among sisters seeking mutual respect. ---------------------------------------------------------- 4.7. When Ambiguity Sows Confusion: Misunderstandings hurt ---------------------------------------------------------- Sometime toward the end of those first days, came one of the most moving posts of the whole process: a powerful statement by a feminist who spoke a wisdom stemming from many years of experience, and in the best Amazon spirit of Fest. Why, she asked, were AFAB and trans women fighting each other while the patriarchy grew stronger: we are all women, and should resist the patriarchy in Amazon power! This was for me a high point of the process, and her wisdom certainly spoke for me -- with a grit and determination I wish that I had. Listening to her made the whole process worthwhile, regardless of what was to happen. Then came some of the saddest moments, when I encountered festies whose understanding of the intention was of the kind which might have made the whole situation right without any need for the niceties of diplomacy and fine questions of policy on which I had become focused. From my point of view, I saw the problem as how to implement a new policy which I had read into the August 18 statement while addressing the concerns which many women had voiced so far: a desire for WBF-only space, and for a Fest free from triggering behaviors which they associated with trans women. However, in a conversation with some women very experienced in Fest and its traditions, I realized how counterproductive this mindset could be. Why did I want to come up with new rules or "solutions" when Fest was fine, and the trans women who attended were those who respected the purpose of the gathering and fit in without any problem? One woman expressed her concerns that my proposals might in fact tend to reduce Fest to just another women's or generic LGBT event. In fact this was the last thing either of us wanted, but it seemed tragicomic that my efforts to address the "boundary violator" concept that some Fest women had of all trans women attending should make other women sincerely wonder why I was not content to leave well enough alone. When things calmed down a bit, one woman who wanted to leave well enough alone told me that she did not see why I did not simply come to Fest, since she felt that I would fit right in. This was a precious moment, and one I cherish. In fact, there were a number of women who felt that there was no need for Michfest to change the intention, nor even (as I suggested) for the leadership to reaffirm, as already implied in the August 18 statement, that the intention was respected rather than violated by trans women who came in the spirit of the event and followed the rules and expectations of the community. What was the problem? Trans women attended, respect between sisters prevailed, and who needed more rules or complications? What I found chaotic in a not-so-creative way was the juxtaposing of these voices with others expressing fears about how, if trans women were deemed not to be violators of the intention, then men might feel free to attend -- or trans women who have not had surgery might feel free to display their genitals in the showers or other places. Further, what about women, especially some abuse survivors, who found the very sight of a human body with a profile suggesting male assignment at birth as triggering? At the time, I reacted by attempting to outline -- rather frenetically -- some possible responses and solutions to these problems. For example, to address the real concern of triggering and a sense of safety for women who wanted a WBF-only space, I proposed that large areas of the Land might indeed be designated WBF-only. While it had been pointed out that a literal partition of the Land would be impossible, certainly there could be zones that festies would observe on the honor system, with community policing if necessary, just as with the areas for older women; chem-free or quiet camping; and practices such as BDSM that other women might not want to witness. Likewise, it could be made clear that any public display of a pre-operative or non-operative trans women's genitals would be a boundary violation, and a ground for removal from Fest. Victoria Brownworth's article nicely addressed this point, as did the policy of the Virginia Women's Music Festival against such displays in 2014 as expressed by its Producer, Billie Hall. Unfortunately, this was not a problem-solving session but a voicing of attitudes and fears unlikely to be changed by a bit more conversation, as my knowledge of the underlying herstory should have made clear! In fact, the idea of "WBW-only" areas drew two types of negative responses. The first was familiar to women who had taken part in previous dialogues: "All of Michfest is our WBW tent, and we want to keep it that way!" The other type of negative feedback was far more distressing as an unintended consequence: women who felt that trans women were an established part of Fest saw the whole idea as totally unnecessary -- unless it was intended as a way to designate part of the Land as WBW, with the implication that the rest was for the LGBT or queer community at large. Empathizing with this sense of besiegement that women felt who wanted to welcome me to their community was almost overwhelming. It made me slow down, take a pause, and consider how to help break a cycle of misunderstanding and potential mistrust among sisters who were really on the same page. My response was the following apology, which refers to the Womyn of Color (WOC) sanctuary at Fest: [A]ctually I was thinking especially of WBW who might still find the idea of transwomyn triggering, and want a place of refuge, so to speak. You see, I see all the Land as WBW, and was leaning over backward to ask if maybe some WBW-only tents (like the WOC tent, which was my analogy) might help. It's like WOC, who can go anywhere, but additionally have their own separate space that all other womyn respect. So, by trying to bend over backward, I may have landed on your toes :). My apologies! As I've already mentioned, and will explore more below (Section 7.5), racial analogies can often be unwise; and although there were no immediate repercussions, this one, too, might have been better avoided. As a woman who's 64, I could have mentioned a part of the Land earmarked for older women, with absolutely no implication that the rest of the Land is for younger women only. Anyway, my apology seemed to defuse the immediate misunderstanding, and I paused... not exactly the proverbial pause that refreshes, but more the pause that subdues. A posture of defensiveness is not the best from which to cultivate receptive and radical listening. It's said that hard cases make bad law, and my feminist variation at that moment might say that tough disagreements can make bad process. It was like the Michfest family was a family which couldn't quite get things together. Trans women got two strong and conflicting messages: MESSAGE 1: "Why can't you take NO for an answer? -- stay away from Fest, and we'll consider you a sister rather than a boundary violator." MESSAGE 2: "Why can't you take YES for an answer? -- just come to Fest like any other woman that belongs, and not to worry." At least for me, this was not a classic double bind like the kind that can literally drive people crazy in dysfunctional families. I had available the simple escape of leaving the process, and celebrating my Lesbian feminism in many other ways. Trans women, Lesbian or otherwise, for whom Fest has been literally a lifesaving event, do not have this privilege, at least not in the same way. For the ten weeks and a bit more following, I would stay with the process and seek communication with Michfest leadership in order to see if Message 1 or Message 2 were closer to what Lisa Vogel meant in the August 18 statement. -------------------------------- 4.8. Bad News: Do I belong here? -------------------------------- My "pause that subdues" brought me down -- both from the intense and often overcharged flow of ideas and emotions over the previous days, and from a hopeful world of inclusive options for Michfest to the sobering reality of what seemed to be the Same Old Conflict. Two bits of bad news helped bring this reality home. First, one of the facilitators clarified that for purposes of our dialogue, the Fest intention was that Michfest space "be space for women born female." There was no mention of the August 18 statement, and I knew that this framing of what we were all supposed to be discussing, which many women could and did confidently read as "WBF-only," was not a good sign. The second bit of bad news had actually come a day earlier, but took on a more ominous cast with this clarification of the intention as the focus of our entire Allies in Understanding process. When I had presented the affirmation in the August 18 statement that trans women "attend the Festival, blog about their experiences, and work on crew," it seemed clear to me that this was a proud statement of inclusiveness. Bragging about how trans women are part of the team that makes Michfest happen each year seemed pretty clearly to imply that they must be welcome -- or, at least, accepted as members of the community rather than "boundary violators." However, one woman replied that saying trans women work on crew didn't seem to her like any kind of welcome: it was simply stating a fact. Further, it illustrated how much more kind and compassionate Fest is than the patriarchy in responding to those who violate its boundaries. If this was indeed the stance of Fest leadership (as it was in 2006), then my choice was clear: to realize that this dialogue was fruitless, and to return to my position before the August 18 statement of supporting the boycott. Of course, I also realized, in a community as large as Michfest, and with as long a herstory of trans exclusion and marginalization, even a leadership fully committed to its words of hospitality and inclusion addressed to the world on August 18 could not and indeed should not attempt to silence dissenting views. That would be a form of "thought policing" just as bad as the gender policing that Michfest had long disavowed. However, what leadership could do was to make it clear that trans women were now an accepted part of Fest, and that those of us who came in the spirit of the event were not "boundary violators," but were indeed respecting the intention for a WBF-centered space just as much as any other woman. Of course, no woman need delight in our presence, any more than every festie delights in the leather or BDSM cultures present on the Land, for example. But no longer could we be subjected to what I now call "intention-shaming" in the name of Fest policy, even while Michfest declared that trans women were a normal and accepted part of Fest reality. If the August 18 statement did not mean this, then it meant little if anything new. The whole process now underway, from this viewpoint, would either legitimize trans women at an inclusive Michfest 40, or else delegitimize itself. ---------------------------- 4.9. "Meltdown" and "Reboot" ---------------------------- In an atmosphere of often fast-paced, high-volume, and sometimes tense exchanges, both participants and facilitators sensed that the levels of conflict were getting out of hand. One of the other women involved had styled herself a "debate geek," and addressed what she saw as logical fallacies of arguments against trans inclusion. My approach at times was similar: it felt like self-defense, but was certainly closer to forensic advocacy, however polite at least in intention, rather than the kind of relaxed and receptive listening that I might do in a feminist affinity group or an online dialogue where mutual trust and support prevailed. The facilitators decided on a response: shutting down the process, removing access to the threads posted so far, and trying a "reboot" with a highly constrained set of exercises to improve our listening skills. It took a few hours, as exhausted as I was at this point, fully to comprehend and perhaps appreciate what had happened. One of the last comments I saw as part of the open dialogue about to end was a question to me about groups for intersex people -- as a person with non-intersex privilege, I want to be a good ally and could recommend a couple of websites or groups, which I later suggested in a personal message. ------------------------------------------------------------------- 4.10. Retrospective: Sam Hope's insight on conflict and stereotypes ------------------------------------------------------------------- Looking back on those first and very intense days of dialogue, I find an insight of Sam Hope very helpful. Sam, a nonbinary, Lesbian-identified feminist, discusses how "Things are not always what they seem to a prejudiced eye" when it comes to trans people in tense conversations. Sam begins with the stereotype that trans women dominate conversations due to male socialization and privilege, and take up "too much space." However, this may in fact reflect the way that, "given the levels of transantagonism to be found in many women's spaces, it takes a gutsy trans woman to walk into one." Sam also uses the adjective "feisty" in this connection, which is a good descriptor for many women in the Fest community. Then, as a nonbinary AFAB person, Sam adds their own perspective by sharing an experience where they were similarly categorized: Some time ago, I was at a feminist workshop, and found myself doing a lot of the talking. This got me thinking, because accidentally dominating a conversation is not a new experience for me. I needed to self-reflect whether this was a sign of my own masculine privilege. I imagine, if I were a trans woman, my behaviour would certainly be taken as evidence of my masculinity. Perhaps, as a transmasculine person, it still is. What was going on for me that day? Well, to be honest I was feeling pretty terrified, because I was scheduled later to deliver a talk on trans issues - I was hypervigilant, wondering how I would be received. I remember the woman I was debating with seemed pretty hostile to my way of looking at things, and I was on the defensive, hoping to talk her round and make myself understood. Something I have learned is that the less comfortable I am, the more I talk. I am also less able to do basic things like modulating tone and loudness, and making judgements about turn-taking. Some people might diagnose my autistic spectrum traits from that description. I am, of course, totally responsible for my own behaviour; I just want to reflect on the cause. While features of conversing by voice such as "modulating tone and loudness" may not apply to online dialogues, certainly concerns about "turn-taking" can. And the tendency for someone in a defensive position to become "hypervigilant" or engaged in a debate-like process was heightened by the hostility that Sam sensed as a transmasculine person, and the kind of uncertain and often contradictory cues about Michfest policy that I received. Not only does this kind of interaction fail to satisfy the needs of a group for mutually supportive listening and feminist process, but it also tends to reinforce stereotypes about trans women or transmasculine people in the Lesbian and feminist communities. This experience that Sam and I have shared from our different trans perspectives contrasts with another meeting I recall from late 1975, if I'm correct, when a group of Lesbian women assembled at a bar to discuss a recent policy change excluding transsexual women. Here it seemed very likely that the policy would remain in place, and I felt resigned to this outcome. The process went fairly smoothly, as I recall: we Lesbian transsexuals read our poetry, there was discussion, and respectful listening seemed to prevail. With the Michfest community, the dizzying lack of any clear policy ensured maximum opportunities for a debate-like atmosphere, high-volume postings, and less than ideal listening. Here I should qualify that by "lack of any clear policy," I do not mean the desirable freedom that women had to express a variety of views and feelings in response to the August 18 statement. I mean the failure of facilitators and leadership to step forward and make it clear that trans women coming to Fest could no longer be labeled, under Fest policy, as "boundary violators." There is, to me, a great difference between saying "If you come, you'll be a boundary violator" and "If you come, the August 18 statement certainly gives you a basis to do that legitimately, although I personally would still prefer that you wouldn't." In a forum and community unwilling or unable to grasp the difference between these two statements, meaningful dialogue about one's welcome, or otherwise, can, at the least, be problematic. --------------------------------------------------------- 5. The "Reboot": From open dialogue to slow-motion debate --------------------------------------------------------- In the next days and weeks, Allies in Understanding "rebooted" by restricting threads to a series of exercises in radical listening. These exercises were often instructive and useful: for example, focusing on our physical reactions to stressful events or triggering words, and seeking out techniques of self-care to cope with this stress. Some of the responses -- usually, one allowed for each woman in a given thread -- focused on life events and experiences not directly relating to Fest or the controversy in which we were involved. Reading and appreciating some of these responses could at times feel like the supportive atmosphere of a feminist small group. However, often these exchanges had the quality of a debate in slow motion. For example, women might discuss how we coped with such stressors as slogans or viewpoints on sex/gender politics with which we disagreed, or such things as meeting "violators" at Fest. It was fairly clear to me that the "violators" here weren't people sneaking in without tickets, for example, but trans women. This felt to me very much like a microaggression. There was one moving moment that stands out to me, quite apart from all the controversy. A woman shared her pain at a misunderstanding, unrelated to trans inclusion issues, that had happened many years ago; and another woman involved hastened to make a brief public apology to her and the group. That, to me, was a living example of truth and reconciliation in action, and maybe something to lend a bit of perspective to the rest of our process. Unfortunately, that moving act of peacemaking between sisters did not seem to transform the larger dialogue. Looking back, I wonder if anything might have reduced the tension or increased the level of empathy between women with often strongly conflicting views, not as to some detail of Fest we would resolve together, but as to who belonged there in the first place. The facilitators made heroic efforts to keep things on track and respectful; but the stresses were still often quite intense. The self-care costs of this kind of "non-debate" quickly grew greater than I could easily sustain, at least while relying on this group process itself for support. As a result, I found myself in the first days after the "meltdown" of open dialogue -- the old threads had closed on August 29 -- seeking out new friends on Facebook outside the Allies in Understanding process itself, but often within the Michfest community. ------------------------------------------------------- 6. Listening Radically to Lisa Vogel -- and writing her ------------------------------------------------------- When I joined Allies in Understanding, my expectation was a highly creative if sometimes painful or even contentious process to map out how trans inclusion under the August 18 statement would be implemented for Michfest 40 and beyond. Back then, I neither suspected nor heard others suggest that Lisa Vogel might declare this coming Fest the last, as was to happen on April 21, although she gave us fair notice in a letter from around that time that the future of Fest was an open question. This agenda, to make the new policy a success and resolve the boycotts against Fest -- and also counterboycotts for which Lisa Vogel had called against Equality Michigan and other boycott sponsors in her August 18 statement -- would call for a very different kind of process than I had seen prevail so far in Allies for Understanding. What concerned me most was the way that facilitators seemed positively to discourage any discussion of the new statement as a policy reality, as opposed to some nebulous utterance which women were free to view in various ways without much consequence for a tradition dialogue on "the intention." Some of what had happened in those days of intense debate and "meltdown" had made me wonder: had I read the August 18 statement correctly? The focus on radical listening made me ask: "Have I listened to Lisa Vogel's words closely enough?" One exchange, especially, made me ask these questions in earnest. During the dialogue, as mentioned above (Section 4.8), I had pointed to this statement as evidence that trans women were evidently now welcome to attend Fest, although we weren't the main focus of this WBF-centered community: The truth is, trans womyn and trans men attend the Festival, blog about their experiences, and work on crew. As also noted, I got a reply that this sentence was simply stating facts: yes, trans women were there; and, since the application procedure for crew didn't do gender policing or screening, trans women were also serving there. All this simply showed, not that trans women were in any sense either welcome or wanted, but how much more generous Fest was than the patriarchy when its boundaries were violated. At the time, I had problems with such an interpretation in terms of socialist values: was it really right to proclaim to the world that people were performing valuable labor, without acknowledging the dignity of the laborers, here shown by welcoming them? In previous conversations, various women including myself had criticized the unfortunate practice of referring to an alleged policy that trans women were welcome as long as we didn't make our presence too visible as "DADT," meaning the military's former policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" directed to Lesbian women and Gay men. Some of us observed that Michfest didn't invade countries such as Viet Nam or Iraq and engage in conflicts costing hundreds of thousands of lives. However, the idea that Fest leadership would do what some blogs had quite reasonably described as "bragging" about the role of trans women on crew, and at the same time decline to make clear that those women on crew were welcome rather than "boundary violators," seemed to me all too much like typical immigration policy for the U.S.A. -- an analogy which would best fit, of course, this kind of "not really welcome" status as applied to trans women of color, one of the most vulnerable women's populations in the U.S.A. The reply I got was that "Michfest is not a country." Of course it wasn't. But the kind of attitude reflected in the intention-shaming of women whose labor was being officially celebrated had the feel of prejudice, not any kind of hospitable welcome, nor a frank unwelcome which at least makes boundaries clear. Now, after the meltdown and the focus of the "rebooted" process on radical listening, I asked myself: had Lisa Vogel said something else that might be less open to such ambiguity, however distrustful or paranoid I might normally consider myself when reading about how trans women served on crew, and parsing that these unwanted interlopers were treated so much more generously than transgressors against the patriarchy? Reading and listening carefully, I came to these familiar words, which seemed to me decisive. My apologies for what might seem a needless repetition, but I would invite the reader to dwell on these words as I did at the end of August, 2014: Michfest is widely known as a predominantly lesbian community. This does not mean that heterosexual womyn, bisexual womyn, or those who do not share this identity are not present or welcome. But for a week, we collectively experience a lesbian-centered world; we experience what it feels like to be in a community defined by lesbian culture. There are trans womyn and trans men who attend and work at the Festival who participate in the Michfest community in this same spirit - as supporters of, rather than detractors from, our female-focused culture. Here "supporters of, rather than detractors from, our female-focused culture," coupled with the analogy to heterosexual or bisexual (AFAB) women, must logically mean that trans women who come in the right spirit are accepted and welcome at Fest, although as guests rather than as the AFAB "owners" of the space and the event. This realization, at the time, gave me a sense of confidence and renewed purpose. In part, I was actually concerned not to ask too much of Lisa Vogel, but to communicate that an understanding or confirmation that trans women were welcome was all that at least some Lesbian trans women were seeking. --------------------------------------------------------- 6.1. Writing Lisa Vogel: The end of a 40 years' conflict? --------------------------------------------------------- In my letter, actually a private message, I focused on the opportunity not only to end the boycotts and counterboycotts, but to resolve a conflict of some 40 years within the Lesbian community over differences between AFAB and trans Lesbians. To me, the August 18 statement was an invitation to reason together and resolve this conflict in a Fest of truth and reconciliation. Specifically, one of the demands of many boycott efforts was that Fest change the intention, which defined the event as intended for women who had been assigned female as birth, raised as girls, and who still lived and identified as women -- in short, WBW or WBF. Making such a change in the intention itself would have been analogous, it seemed to me, to amending the Constitution of the U.S.A., a dramatic and likely traumatic process for many women to whom the intention represented stability, and also an assurance that Festival would not become some common denominator or generic LGBT event. Also, given the dynamics of the boycott and the tone of Lisa Vogel's response on August 18, I sensed that changing the intention would feel like an act of capitulation at a time when Michfest needed a path to inclusion that would strengthen rather than compromise its unique Amazon and Lesbian feminist tradition and values. Since the statement itself had declared that trans women could and did come as "supporters of, rather than detractors, from" Fest culture, an obvious alternative was to interpret the intention as not inconsistent with that announced reality. The idea that the intention defined the autonomous WBF owners of Fest, but not an exclusive guest list, seemed to me a compromise that might not please every boycott supporter, but would address the immediate issue of hospitality and welcome. For me, there was a powerful analogy to this kind of solution: the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment as it applies to sex discrimination. For the first century or so after the ratification of this amendment in 1868, it was assumed that its clause guaranteeing "equal protection of the laws" did not apply to gender distinctions. Thus a 1948 Supreme Court case held that Michigan could prevent most women from becoming bartenders based on gender stereotypes. However, starting in 1973, the Supreme Court interpreted that identical Fourteenth Amendment -- which itself hadn't changed -- to forbid sex discrimination unless it met what the Court would eventually describe as the test of having an "exceedingly persuasive" justification. In many ways, this new interpretation achieved much of what the feminist movement hoped to accomplish by the yet unratified Equal Rights Amendment. In likewise reinterpreting the intention -- which I read the August 18 statement itself as already having done -- Lisa Vogel and Fest leadership could resolve the main issue of welcome and hospitality without the drastic transition of altering the intention itself. Although my main focus was on the welcome for trans women who came with the right intention as the focus for resolving the boycotts, there was a potentially delicate point that I did not avoid. That was the nature of the conflict as an intra-Lesbian issue. A focus on that angle could permit Fest to affirm its Lesbian-centered nature, but would imply something not recognized or implied in the August 18 statement itself: that Lesbian trans women are indeed Lesbians. As I was aware from reading some feminist blogs, there were sites where it was argued that not only trans women, but AFAB women who partnered them, could not really be Lesbians. Such recognition was, from my point of view, not essential to ending the boycott: if trans women were welcome, then the feminist ideology of who was or wasn't a Lesbian could be discussed at Fest by women who so desired, maybe in workshops designated for this purpose. The possible advantage I saw for a moderate compromise solution is that an "intra-Lesbian focus" might serve both to assure women uncertain about inclusion that Fest was staying Lesbian-centered; and, at the same time, to signal to everyone that the often internecine conflict within the Lesbian community about trans issues and birth assignments was finally coming to a close. As a Lesbian of the Second Wave, I thought of myself as inviting a quiet "dialogue between crones" of Lisa's generation and mine that could expand into a larger peace process to end the boycott. -------------------------------------------------------- 6.2. Lisa Vogel's Initiative: Rallying the Amazon forces -------------------------------------------------------- Around this time, I learned of an initiative that had already begun: an effort by Lisa Vogel and many enthusiastic festies to reach the organizations sponsoring the boycott and express their displeasure. Part of this seemed a healthy assertion of autonomy and self-determination in an atmosphere where, as I knew well, Fest was often put down as some "outdated Second Wave" event. This aspect of the campaign resonated with my own feminist pride. The more troubling aspect was that while phrases from the August 18 statement were sometimes cited or quoted to contradict the misunderstanding that there was a "ban" on trans women attending Fest, I still wasn't aware of an effort by Lisa Vogel or others in leadership to address internal resistance to the simple proposition that trans women were now welcome to attend. Surely, I thought, leadership must be aware of what had transpired during the opening days of Allies in Understanding, and the "meltdown" that had occurred. These tensions would need sooner or later to be resolved in one way or another. My own attempt to join the movement to defend Michfest, while at the same time advancing inclusion, was in retrospect rather comically naive. At the time, however, it seemed to fit both the intent of the August 18 statement, and the important theme of the anti-boycott campaign that in fact inclusion was already the current policy! The argument I presented was that just as California's Proposition 8 ban on marriage equality was still on the books, but in fact Lesbian marriages had been business as usual since the summer of 2013, so the intention of Fest must be interpreted in light of the August 18 statement, which welcomed feminist trans women as "supporters of... our female-focused culture." Thus boycotting Fest for the sake of inclusion now made no more sense than boycotting the State of California to protest the no-longer-operative Proposition 8. This line of argument presumed that in fact the August 18 statement had reinterpreted the intention in an inclusive (or one might say nonexclusive) sense. In other words, the event was still intended primarily for women who had been born female and had lived their entire lives as women, but was now open to all women who respected this framing and were ready to support it rather than detract from it. ------------------------------------------------ 6.3. Some Sobering and Informative Conversations ------------------------------------------------ The first days of September brought some conversations at once sobering and highly informative as to the range of views within the Michfest community, and the lack of consensus (as if I didn't already know!) as to any idea that trans women were now welcome. One woman, who was involved in Allies in Understanding, expressed the view that to seek confirmation that trans women were now welcome at Fest was in effect to propose debating or changing the intention. She predicted that a trans woman attending might get different reactions from different women. Some would have no problem; some would feel that a boundary had been violated; and some might acquiesce because of "female socialization." Another participant in the dialogue process, and a strong Lesbian separatist, held that the August 18 statement was certainly not any kind of invitation for trans women to attend: at most, it was something other than an outright "no." Thus the only respectful alternative for a trans woman was not to attend. A different and fascinating perspective came from a nonbinary Lesbian who had been a dedicated festie for many years, and seemed very much at home both with Fest and with large portions of the trans community. Hir perspective -- here I will use nonbinary pronouns, ze/hir/hirs/hirself -- was that the conflict at Fest has resulted from the 5% of those on both sides of the issue who make life difficult for all the women who simply want to enjoy the gathering. That view seemed very credible to me. The Allies in Understanding process so far had revealed many women who wanted an inclusive and at the same time traditional Fest that welcomes trans women without any special fuss, and without a need for the kind of very visible "transactivism" that at various points had occurred as the other side of exclusion or at least active unwelcome. Ze urged me that any woman who felt drawn to the Land should come, and that "womon-born womon" was a matter of self-identification rather than a biological test. This made sense to me: Fest might very fairly ask me to be aware of my former male privilege, and also to focus on the purpose of Fest, saving an emphasis on trans issues for other times and places. These conversations convinced me both that the serious differences on the simple question of whether trans women were welcome under current policy had if possible to be resolved in order to end the boycott, and that an inclusive solution that could address the needs of many attendees should be possible. ------------------------------------------------------ 6.4. A Basic Dilemma: Are we playing "Intention says"? ------------------------------------------------------ In a game of my childhood that evidently has many variants around the world, players are required to follow a command preceded by "Simon says," and disregard it otherwise. This was the kind of pattern I saw as emerging both within the Allies in Understanding dialogue, and in other conversations. Thus the August 18 statement said that trans women "are our sisters"; both attend and serve on crew at Fest; and come as supporters rather than detractors from Fest culture. To ask for further reassurance might seem almost pretentious for a Lesbian or more generally feminist trans woman, or even a sign of distrust or paranoia where sisterly trust should prevail on all sides. However, many opponents of inclusion seemed to feel: "The August 18 statement says that; but we need to hear `Intention says.' The intention hasn't changed, and therefore policy hasn't changed, either. Fest remains a WBF space, and you are free either to respect or to violate that boundary." For these opponents of inclusion, a "WBF space" implicitly meant, just as it had in 2006, a "WBF-only" space. The idea of a trans woman attending with an awareness that she was a respectful guest in an event where she came as a legitimate denizen or naturalized citizen rather than a natural-born citizen, which for me was summed up by the idea of a 'WBF-centered" space, was quite foreign to this perspective. Who decided which interpretation should prevail? Was it a decision of Lisa Vogel and the leadership, who owned the Land, and ultimately determined policy? Was it a matter of consensus, so that I should not attend Fest unless there was actual or at least virtual unanimity that I would be welcome? Or was it a matter of individual conscience, so that a trans woman could validly attend if she felt that she fit the intention, while other attendees could with equal validity consider her a "boundary violator," and express their sentiment by such established means as wearing red T-shirts, for example? ------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.5. The Limits of Individual Conscience: Schrodinger's (un)welcome ------------------------------------------------------------------- For a while in early September, I played with the idea that this could be a matter of individual conscience, allowing a "concordant dissonance" of views among women who attended Fest. This line of reasoning noted that since 2006, Fest had disowned any "gender policing" of women at the gate when selling tickets, or on the Land. The various statements of 2013-2014 had, at the least, affirmed that trans women do attend, and that interpretations of the intention vary. From this perspective, wouldn't it be almost an exercise in "thought policing" to ask that each woman attending Fest consider me welcome? Couldn't we just call off all of this policing, and agree that each woman attending would respect both the conscientious decision of any other woman to attend, and the personal views any other woman might have as to the intention? In principle, it seemed very attractive, maybe recalling centuries of struggle in Europe for freedom of conscience in matters of religion, for example, in which women often risked and often in fact endured martyrdom. "Regardless of our different ways of interpreting the intention, we can all live together as loving sisters at Fest" would have been a noble resolution indeed. In practice, however, there were two big reasons why such a solution could hardly address the actual situation of Fest. First, this was not a question of respectful difference, but of highly charged conflict. The comparison of any trans woman attending Fest to a burglar did not fit with the official declaration that "Michfest recognizes trans womyn as womyn -- and they are our sisters. We do not fear their presence among us, a false claim repeatedly made." Some conversations suggested that for some influential women in the Michfest community, a possible clarification of this last statement might have been: "We do not fear their presence among us, but we see that presence as a sign of total disrespect for Fest that threatens to erase the experience for which the event stands." Not going where one is not welcome, unless there is some strong necessity for doing so, did seem to me the sisterly choice -- despite the fact that, if a large number of trans women and their allies joining them in solidarity made this choice, it might deprive Fest of financial and other support that it needed to remain viable. The second big reason for not finding such a solution practical was that the leadership needed to take responsibility for implementing the August 18 statement, and making it clear that trans women were welcome as guests although not as "owners" of the space. If the kinds of tensions I had observed had not been present, at least at this level, then the need for leadership intervention might not have been present. If women had cordially agreed to disagree about the theory of the intention while sharing Fest in a spirit of mutual love and trust, then the idea of each woman reaching her own interpretation and honoring that of each of her sisters would have been an ideal resolution. The problem was not creative ambiguity, but palpable tension and hostility. What was needed, in my view, was not so much a special invitation to trans women that we should attend Fest, but a clear message that we were now un-disinvited. The message of the Michfest statement in 2006 that any trans woman attending would be "choosing to disrespect the stated intention of this Festival" had to be expressly reversed -- or, to put it more diplomatically, at least unmistakably updated to say that trans women were now welcome guests at Fest. There was also a third reason relating not only to trans women who wished to attend Fest, but to the larger Lesbian, feminist, and LGBTQIA communities. For those of us who had signed the Equality Michigan petition, attending rather than boycotting Fest had to mean that there had been some meaningful change in Fest policy. That change, for me, was a simple affirmation that trans women were now welcome. At the beginning of the dialogue process, I would have been quite ready to accept the August 18 statement as itself that affirmation; but experience quickly showed that the message had not gotten out. The status quo, as I had experienced it through Allies in Understanding and also some private conversations, reminded me of a legendary thought-experiment in physics as described by Erwin Schrodinger, and thus known as Schrodinger's Cat. In this experiment, a cat is placed into a box for one hour, say. During this hour, there is a 50% chance that a small quantity of radioactive substance in the box will undergo a decay that, upon registering on a Geiger counter, sets off a device delivering a tasty snack to the cat. (Schrodinger's original scenario specifies release of a deadly poison, but this more nonviolent version makes the same point.) Until we open the box and actually observe the result, one view of quantum mechanics holds, the cat is in an indeterminate state: both fed and still waiting for a snack, as it were. Only the presence of an observer "collapses" this indeterminate state into one outcome or the other. What the dialogue process had revealed was that the August 18 statement was being read as, in a sense, "Schrodinger's (un)welcome" to trans women. Everything was indeterminate, with trans women desiring respectfully to attend Fest, and supporters of a "WBF-only" event, free alike to claim that policy supported their position. This was not a healthy "agreement to disagree," but an unresolved conflict doing harm on various sides. If the boycott were to end, then sooner or later Michfest leadership would have to let the cat out of the bag. -------------------------------------------- 6.6. "Womon-born Womon": A flexible concept? -------------------------------------------- In the course of this dialogue process, I also got a message from certain women (as mentioned in Section 6.3) that "womon-born womon" should mean a self-identification rather than a biological test. Was this a possible strategy permitting me to attend despite the uncertainties I felt after being told by Michfest community members that coming to Fest would be an act of sheer "male socialization"? Unfortunately, Lisa Vogel had given the term "womyn-born womyn" a very specific and partly biological definition, as reflected by the May 9, 2014 statement: We have said that this space, for this week, is intended to be for womyn who were born female, raised as girls and who continue to identify as womyn. It was very, very clear to me that women who spoke of a "WBW-only" or "WBF-only" policy as excluding any respectful attendance by trans women were not talking about self-identification or allegiance; they were talking about birth assignment and childhood socialization. Thus for me to claim WBW or WBF status, for example on the basis of my feminist allegiance or desire simply to "come as a Lesbian feminist," would likely be taken as a misrepresentation of my birth status and natal biology. This would have been treacherous ground for an intersectional feminist who values honest communication among sisters. While some women in the dialogue who had lived their entire lives from birth as females were ready to interpret "WBW" more flexibly, the traditional definition based on biological birth assignment was of central importance for others. This letter by Lisa Vogel on August 31, 2014 is much to the point: We have to grapple with the reality that we have participated in a long-term deconstruction of the identity of lesbian, of female, and the shaming of Michigan. We looked the other way as the LGBTQ leadership took many little steps that led up to disavowing the lesbian community the right to self-determination and the dignity to create a home ground on which to celebrate our sisterhood. Reading these words from a distance of eight or nine months (I first saw them in September or October), I recognize that the emphasis on "the identity of lesbian, of female," especially taken in this context, suggests a biological rather than more flexible approach. Specifically, does "the lesbian community" include Lesbians who happen to be trans women? And should we be able respectfully to attend Fest without the kind of "shaming" with which I was now well familiar: the intention-shaming which in its own way can do as much harm as the kinds of misogyny and sexist shaming or nonrecognition which Lesbians of all varieties may meet in the wider LGBT community to which Vogel refers in her letter? Given that WBW/WBF had a very clearly defined meaning for the Michfest leadership, I felt that blurring or seeking to redefine this meaning could be counterproductive at best. My concern wasn't being accepted as WBW/WBF, but simply being accepted as a sister, and hopefully as a Lesbian feminist. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 6.7. Ethical Stress in Mid-September: On both sides of a picket line? --------------------------------------------------------------------- By the middle of September, I found that participating in the Allies in Understanding process was causing me ethical stress that needed somehow to be resolved. Although the group disclaimed "debate" as a purpose, I have described (Section 5) how it seemed very much like a curious kind of debate in slow motion, where intention-shaming was not excluded. By "intention-shaming" I do not mean the sharing of feelings that Fest would be best as a WBF-only space, or of fears and anxieties concerning the presence of trans women as an accepted part of Fest. Rather, I mean the expression of views that trans women had no legitimate place at Fest; and the active discouragement of trans women from attending Michfest 40. Yet more specifically, I mean the way that neither the facilitators nor Michfest leadership acted to confront these views, making clear that while women might personally prefer the absence of trans women, or even hold that only a WBF-only policy would be correct, Michfest policy welcomed all women who came to support the focus of the event; and that intention-shaming (trying to discourage trans women from attending) was unacceptable within our group. This was for me a matter of simple hospitality. The reason I had joined this process was not to take part in a debate on policy, nor simply to have a roundtable discussion on how and why trans women might be either welcomed or intention-shamed, with all views standing on an equal footing. To choose hospitality is necessarily to disawow inhospitality, at least as a fair interpretation of what the group offering hospitality is saying and intending. Rather, I was interested in joining with other women to seek out the best ways for implementing the policy of hospitality announced by the August 18 statement, including ways to make women who preferred a WBF-only setting as comfortable as possible. The possibility of ending the boycotts and counterboycotts, and resolving a crisis for a classic Second Wave institution, gave me powerful motivations to participate. However, after a few weeks of this process, I expressed my sense of frustration in a message that I briefly posted in one of the threads for Allies in Understanding. A facilitator had posted some quite beautiful words, which I cannot here quote because of the confidentiality agreement, which talked about a sense of community being founded on the ability to disagree respectfully. This was my comment posted in reply, which, as I recall, I deleted after a short time: All humanity is a "community," and nonviolence means that we disagree in ways that affirm our common membership in that community including all of Planet Gaia. There's also the hard truth of smaller communities, often defined by boundaries of various kinds, and of conflicts where there sometimes are rather clear sides, even if lots of blurring also. If a womon is on one side of a picket line, and hears words from the other side suggesting that maybe the whole conflict is just a misunderstanding or ancient herstory, then she might cross to the other side and hopefully seek out a better understanding. Then she learns that for lots of people, the issues haven't really changed. At some point, having come in peace, she realizes that to stay further would be trying to live on two sides of a picket line at the same time. And then the honorable thing for her is to get back to the side where it turns out she still belongs -- always remembering that nonviolent "adversaries" in the conflict at hand are still sisters and allies in some larger scheme of things. In early August, I had signed the Equality Michigan petition, placing myself on that side of the picket line. Then, the August 18 statement gave hope that the terms of the conflict had fundamentally changed: if trans women were now welcome, then seeking to hasten an end to the boycott and maximize the success of Michfest 40 would realize the very values that had moved me to support the boycott. However, the inhospitality that trans women had experienced in this dialogue process -- and, much more to the point, the absence of any leadership response that I could discern affirming that hospitality was indeed the new policy -- made me feel "on two sides of a picket line at the same time." This realization on September 19, the day I wrote these words, led quickly to another level of action. --------------------------------------------------------------- 7. An Open Letter on Ending the Boycott, and a Telling Response --------------------------------------------------------------- The concerted Michfest community campaign to write organizations sponsoring the boycott and urge them to end it provided the setting for the effort on which I embarked, seeking and getting invaluable advice from other women who had an established presence at Fest. Given that many of the letters in this campaign had been addressed to Kate Kendell of the National Center for Lesbian Rights (NCLR), the idea of an open letter addressed both to her and to Lisa Vogel appealed to me. The purpose would be to invite these two women, as leaders of the Lesbian community, to join in a constructive dialogue to end the boycott and build an inclusive Michfest 40. Additionally, I wanted to include Emily Dievendorf of Equality Michigan, a bisexual woman, as the person who had made a special initiative to support Lesbian and other trans women at Michfest. She, too, would be a central figure in negotiations to shift the situation from boycotts and counterboycotts to an alliance united around the goal of a successful Michfest 40, a success which could serve as a model for inclusion in other settings. At this point, a basic question arose: why should I be the one writing such a letter, when there were many other women who had actually attended Fest, and a number who had played central roles over the years in advocating inclusion and helping to make it happen in practice, despite the troublesome and sometimes ugly conflicts that were still continuing? The answer seemed to be that while there was interest in this kind of open letter on the part of women with this kind of past involvement and experience with Fest, I was the woman at the time who happened to write it. However, without the knowledge and wisdom that a number of these Fest sisters generously shared with me, I could not well have taken on the project, whatever the flaws of the final version. --------------------------------------- 7.1. Learning From Others: Fest culture --------------------------------------- In responding to the boycott movement, many festies saw it as, at least potentially, an assault on elements of Fest culture that had been valued through the years and decades. Thus an open letter seeking an end to the boycott should affirm these cultural elements, and also the importance of a strong and united Lesbian community. One problem often raised, in official Michfest statements, the Allies in Understanding process, and elsewhere, was the question of showers, and more specifically of fears that trans women who had not, at least yet, undergone genital reconstruction surgery might display their genitals and traumatize other women. While the episode in 1999 of trans man Tony Barreto-Neto (see Section 2.1) had been misunderstood to involve a trans woman, I read and heard various reports and concerns about actual trans women at Fest creating similar situations. Simply reading lots of documents, articles, and debates about Fest did not give me the saavy to address this problem in a Fest-friendly way, but fortunately there were women with this saavy who clued me in on some basic constraints. Fest did have some "shy showers" with privacy curtains, and it might be tempting to propose simply that lots more be installed. However, one approach which wouldn't place an extra burden on Fest itself would be to encourage women to bring portable solar showers, which would have minimum impact on the Land and wouldn't have to be stored there the rest of the year. These conversations also alerted me to just how delicate was the fine balance between "intention" (in the sense of a focus on women who lived their entire lives as female) and "inclusion" (a legitimate place for trans women). Maybe it helped that I love fine nuances of diplomatic language. The feedback at various stages of writing was invaluable, although of course I must take full responsibility for the wording that emerged. -------------------------------------- 7.2. Addressing Intra-Lesbian Conflict -------------------------------------- Looking back on those last weeks of September, I realize that one aspect of my position may have been a disadvantage in seeking to write an open letter as ideologically neutral and uncharged as possible: the need to assert my Lesbian feminist identity as a transsexual woman. For some people on both sides of the boycott question, this was a conflict within the greater queer community between the "L" and the "T" -- as if between "Lesbian" and "transsexual/transgender" there were no intersection. Being situated at that intersection, I could authentically speak from nowhere else. At least in theory, it might have been possible for the Michfest leadership to extend a welcome to trans women, the main issue involved in the boycott, without also acknowledging that trans women can be Lesbians. However, the real herstory of the conflict, as I was to address it in the open letter, made these two issues practically inseparable. The simple fact was that the whole conflict, or at least its roots, went back to the intra-Lesbian tensions that arose at the West Coast Lesbian Conference in 1973 (with Beth Elliott under attack as a transsexual Lesbian); and which I had experienced in 1974-1975; and were much more drastically revealed in the campaign against Olivia Records and Sandy Stone of 1976-1978. This was a conflict over issues of birth assignment involving mainly Lesbian feminists, and set the stage for the controversies around Michfest beginning with the expulsion of Nancy Jean Burkholder in 1991 (see Section 2). Telling the truth about the nature of this 40-year conflict within the Lesbian community, whatever other portions of the larger LGBTQIA movement might get involved, was something I could hardly avoid. After all, it was my own Second Wave roots that made me interested in Fest, and its Lesbian feminist culture that coincided with vital elements of my own life. This was also a matter of doing justice to activists such as Kate Kendell, who were sometimes portrayed as supporting the boycott movement not because they felt that it was the right thing to do in order to foster inclusive feminist values, but because "male-dominated elements" of the LGBT movement were setting the agenda. Ending the boycott on a fair basis would have to mean moving beyond such distractions to the need to resolve a painful and damaging internal conflict between Lesbian sisters. There was also my own basic conviction that some forms of prejudice are inconsistent with feminist community. The view that neither Lesbian trans women nor their partners who may have lived their entire lives as female are "true Lesbians" is to me very much in this category. ------------------------- 7.3. Releasing the Letter ------------------------- After getting lots of useful feedback, and making revisions accordingly, I sent the final version of the letter to Lisa Vogel, Kate Kendell, and Emily Dievendorf on September 30, 2014, and then released it publicly. No diplomatic contacts of which I know grew out of this open letter, and, of course, any results from such letters tend to be unpredictable. The other possible development I sought was an internal dialogue within the Michfest community focused on the August 18 statement and how to implement it. Arriving at a clear statement of welcome for trans women at Fest comfortable for at least most members of the community could have gone a long way toward resolving the boycott. This dialogue did not happen. By this point, it had become clear that Allies in Understanding would not be the right venue for two reasons. First, the restricted threads, while in fact they involved not only the training in radical listening to which they were dedicated, but also a sharing of positions on issues of intention and inclusion (typically in comments of no more than three or four sentences), were hardly an ideal vehicle for discussing what the August 18 statement meant and how to implement it at Michfest 40. More profoundly, as I had suspected by the time of the "meltdown" at the end of August and knew more clearly by early September, Allies in Understanding was designed _not_ to address policy, but to have a traditional "sharing of views" on inclusion issues just as if the August 18 statement had never been made. As it turned out, there would be no other structured internal dialogue to address the issues raised by my open letter. However, the situation did resolve in its own way within two weeks or so, for most practical purposes. ----------------------------------------------------------- 7.4. Conversations: Trans men, Fest autonomy, and missexing ----------------------------------------------------------- During the first days of October immediately after the release of the open letter, there were some informal online conversations about it in which a range of views were expressed. One topic raised involved the sensitive issue of respect for Fest autonomy and Lisa Vogel's judgment when it came to trans men. In writing the open letter, I respected and followed Lisa Vogel's language in the August 18 statement that both "trans womyn" and "trans men" participated in and volunteered at Fest as "supporters of, rather than detractors from, our female-focused culture." As someone who had not lived her entire life as female, I felt it important to let Fest address the question of trans men. Some women who otherwise supported the letter had, at least, mixed feelings about encouraging the attendance of trans men who lived and identified as male. There were two ways in which such a policy might seem problematic, as also at women's colleges, for example. First, for a trans man, being invited into a women's space might almost be a form of misgendering -- assuming that the person indeed identified completely as male, rather than as nonbinary, genderqueer, or transgender Lesbian, etc. Also, if the trans man's male identity were fully respected, wouldn't this change the character of an all-women's space in a way that tended to weaken its purpose? Other women felt that a flexible boundary was desirable, in part, because those coming out as trans men, especially if they have been active participants in the Lesbian community, can go through a process of questioning where attending Fest may help in resolving doubts, whatever the conclusion. Making the boundary "soft" or "fuzzy" could also help a transitioning trans man shift gently and in good time from relying on predominantly Lesbian spaces like Fest to moving into other spaces while maintaining earlier connections and friendships. Not having experienced such a situation personally, I felt it was best to listen and learn while emphasizing my respect for the approach Lisa Vogel had chosen. There were excellent arguments on various sides, and discretion seemed to me the better part of valor. Trans men also tied in with a less fortunate conversation in which one critic of the letter early raised a question I thought was fair: how qualified was I to address inclusion issues when I had never attended Fest? That was an undeniable point, and also in some sense a bit humorous and ironic. For the women asking this question, I knew that if I had attended earlier Fests, I would be by definition a "boundary violator," and thus hardly have the moral standing to suggest "improvements"! Wryly I pictured Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Susan B. Anthony being asked: "You've never even voted in a political campaign, and yet you think that you're an expert on how to change the election laws!" Of course, when it came to business models for Fest, or how to run security, or details of the program, I was among the least expert of the least expert, since anyone who had attended would have more knowledge and experience on these topics than I would. However, the topic of my open letter wasn't how to change Fest in general, but only about the inclusion of a group of women to which I happen to belong. Negotiating inclusion requires that the people to be included participate. The conversation went downhill when it was suggested that a "truly inclusive" Fest would need to make radical changes in rules. For example, there would need to be a change in the traditional rule against the playing of music (e.g. on CD players) with "male" voices. Likewise, there could be no humorous parodies of men, or jokes at the expense of male pretensions. These claims I found amazing in a way, but totally in line with the essentialism that I knew must be present based on other comments to be found on the web, and which I had heard in some previous conversations. I was aware of the "no male voices" rule, and, if I were to bring a CD player to Fest, would be very careful to respect it in my choice of albums: thus Anonymous IV (a wonderful medieval women's group), but not recordings of Renaissance music with mixed vocal ensembles. Under the interpretation I was now reading, however, trans women ourselves had "male voices," and thus were presumably under an unexpected rule of silence! The assumption that feminist humor would somehow be objectionable to trans women, ourselves often the object of patriarchal harassment or worse, seemed to me strange -- but symptomatic of the real problems to which the boycott movement was a response. The misunderstanding that one can avoid misgendering by affirming that "trans women are women," but then without offense engage in missexing by declaring that "trans women are male," was for me characteristic of the kind of grudging toleration which should not be confused with real allyship. As it happened, some of this missexing or misgendering by members of the Michfest community was directed not only to trans women, but to trans men, sometimes seen as suffering from "anti-Lesbian" attitudes. This led me to make a resolution that I would support misgendered trans men by affirming their male identity and perspective, and becoming a better Lesbian ally. ----------------------------------- 7.5. The Danger of Racial Analogies ----------------------------------- One thing I regret was a remark I made in a comment to a socialist website on October 1 about the possibilities of the August 18 statement as a way to move toward inclusion and an end to the boycott. As a reaction to some of the less hospitable views I had encountered, I commented that there seemed to be resistance to implementing the statement possibly like that to the decision of the Supreme Court in _Brown v. Board of Education_ (1954). If I had it to do over again, I would certainly have written something different. Racism is a unique evil, and one major problem with racial analogies is that they carry the risk of making the present and violent reality of racism seem like only a quaint metaphor for some other form of oppression. For a Butch Lesbian of color like Sakia Gunn, murdered at age 15, or a trans woman of color like Cece McDonald, imprisoned for the "crime" of using deadly force to defend herself from a violent attack, toxic racism is both an immediate reality and an oppression that intersects with sexism and prejudice against gender variant women. More generally, there's a continuing pattern of police violence, sometimes directly or indirectly lethal, against African-American women such as Rekia Boyd, Dajerria Becton, and Sandra Bland. The #BlackLivesMatter and #SayHerName campaigns today are a continuation a century later of the anti-lynching campaigns of Ida B. Wells, a great intersectional feminist of the First Wave. In the course of Allies for Understanding and related conversations, racial analogies came up on various sides. For example, when I proposed that camping areas, workshops, and the like might well be set aside for WBW/WBF festies and that trans women could and should respect such boundaries, a reply was that "separate but equal is ridiculous." Yet the creation of such niches for different subgroups of women, and respect for this manifestation of diversity, does not seem otherwise to be dismissed as "separate but equal." Also, while the level of conflict and tension between sisters within and around the Michfest community was often uncomfortably high, I experienced nothing that seemed at all comparable to the scenes of resistance to school integration in Little Rock in 1957, or Boston in 1974. Thus my analogy was misplaced, as were claims by some of the boycott supporters that Michfest still had a "ban" on trans women, as opposed to a policy of less than welcome. Looking back now, if I were asked to find some law case analogous to the Michfest situation, I might choose the situation in Kansas regarding marriage equality before the landmark decision in _Obergefell v. Hodges_ (June 26, 2015). Couples were often able to marry, but not to get full state recognition for their marriages. At least, that seems a better analogy than the continuing oppression of racism. ------------------------------------------------ 7.6. Unhopeful Omens in Allies for Understanding ------------------------------------------------ Early in the second week of October, a thread opened within Allies in Understanding invited us briefly to explain our own positions on intention and inclusion. One frequent type of response was to assert that the commenter was, of course, an "ally" who recognized that trans women are women -- but who wanted Fest to remain a "female-only" event. There were a range of variations. Trans women shouldn't attend because festies wanted a break from people who reminded them of the patriarchy. Further, "nonfemales" were quite capable of neither attending Fest, nor proposing that policy change, nor taking part in some action like a boycott. Part of the radical listening process was affirming each other's truths, a process certainly possible to honor even while disagreeing on many different topics. However, one kind of validation sought was for trans women and supporters to agree: "It's not transphobic for me to say..." Often the attitude or position completing that variety of statement was a trans-exclusive one. And that created a real dilemma. Allyship means generally letting someone experiencing a given form of oppression, like transphobia, define how that oppression feels and what kind of attitudes or statements might suggest it. This does not mean that I should or would label a sister as "transphobic" for expressing a view that does, for me, suggest an element of transphobia. Rather, I would seek to understand her viewpoint, and then gently explain the feeling of discomfort I might have, or concerns about where such a statement might lead. Likewise, being the ally of a nonbinary Lesbian means that I am open to their suggestions that something I say -- even as innocent as the familiar greeting "Ladies and gentlemen..." or "Sisters and brothers" -- might express binarism. It's understood that the point is not to label or humiliate me, but indeed to help raise my consciousness and empathy about oppressions I have not directly experienced. This thread helped confirm my impression that too much of this dialogue was about why trans women should stay away from Fest rather than about how we could be included while respecting Fest traditions and maximizing mutual understanding. What didn't seem to be happening, an initiative by facilitators or leadership to explore strategies and safeguards for inclusion, remained the most important thing about my six weeks or so of experience so far. What I cannot emphasize too much is that there were many women who wanted inclusion, or were open to the idea. The structure of the dialogue, however, did not seemed designed to move forward, but to maintain the conflict more or less as it was. ------------------------------------------------ 7.7. The Moment of Truth: An unofficial response ------------------------------------------------ As the second week of October neared its end, I received a communication which seemed authoritative: a private clarification of the leadership's position in response to my open letter. Briefly stated, the message was that my reading of the August 18 statement was my own personal interpretation, as opposed to what the leadership itself had intended. The Michfest position remained correctly expressed by the statement of May 9, which had said that the intention was for WBF, but without any affirmation that trans women can and do come to Fest and serve on crew as "supporters of, rather than detractors from," the event. Unlike many previous statements and also silences, this communication required little interpretation: the message was clear. Unless some kind of dialogue involving leadership were to take place -- which seemed a possibility -- I was on the wrong side of the picket line. When I signed the Equality Michigan petition, the May 9 statement was already well familiar to me. It affirmed that trans women had "always" attended Fest; that the event was not intended for us; that some trans women came either to change the intention or because we felt included in it; that the "onus" was on us to deal with the intention; and that "the greater queer community" was asked to promote respect for the intention. Between early August, when I signed the boycott petition, and mid-October, there was one main difference. Through direct experience, albeit online rather than on the Land, I had learned what intention-shaming felt like, and why it was a very serious issue, quite apart from any misconceptions about an outright "ban" on trans women. The fine phraseology of whether trans women should be regarded as "welcome," "invited," or even just "accepted, like any woman" might have been fun to negotiate in a different scenario, where inclusion had been a common basis for dialogue. But such nuances were not the issue: the legitimacy of intention-shaming was. At least, it was a legitimacy that the Michfest leadership was not ready decisively to move away from, in order to begin a new and better era. ------------------------- 7.8. Leaving the Dialogue ------------------------- After receiving the unofficial communication, I allowed four weeks or so for any dialogue that might lead me to modify my conclusions. None occurred. However, taking part in Allies in Understanding and other conversations during those weeks made me aware of some important points that I have borne in mind since. First, while supporting the boycott, I am aware that there are women, including trans women, for whom Fest is a critically important place for renewal and healing. And there are women at Fest who are there specifically to support trans women who may literally rely on the event for their lives. The boycott should be seen as directed, not in any way against these courageous sisters, but the policies (through action or inaction) of letting them be marginalized and exposed to very unsisterly attitudes in the name of Lesbian feminism. Also, there are women at Fest who have built inclusive spaces and communities, living out the values and arrangements that might have liberated the Allies in Understanding process and mobilized it toward a focus on problem solving and secure niches for all women. By mid-November, when I left this process, my focus had already turned to places in my own neighborhood and community which could serve as a kind of Land for me. At the same time, however, I relished new ties with women who wanted inclusion and had shared in the dialogue. The energy of Fest enriches me, even as I strive to "think globally, act locally." ------------------------- 7.9. A Question of Values ------------------------- My opportunity to engage in dialogue with members of the Michfest community, both through the Allies in Understanding process and more informally, gave me a deeper appreciation of Lisa Vogel's achievement, shared by the uncounted thousands of women who have attended, volunteered, and helped to sustain this event over the last four decades. If I had to sum up the inclusion issue in a nutshell, having now addressed some of its aspects at considerable length, I might do so about as follows. In 1976, when Michfest began, Lisa Vogel and some of her associates viewed trans women as "men." Under that view, however mistaken, it logically followed that such "men" did not belong in a women's space like Michfest. As it happened, the conflict in terms of Michfest (as opposed to Olivia Records and Sandy Stone) would begin only 15 years later with the expulsion of Nancy Burkholder in 1991. She, too, was described, in a Michfest statement justifying her expulsion, as a "transsexual man." Thus in the epoch of 1976-1978, when the phrase "womyn-born womyn" reportedly came into use at Fest, it did not mean that there were different types of women, some of whom belonged at Fest and others whose presence was not intended. Rather, it encompassed all women deemed in fact to be women under the Michfest understanding of the time. By 2006, Lisa Vogel and the Michfest leadership declared that a trans woman was indeed a "womon" (a radical feminist spelling underscoring a message of full sisterhood), and affirmed trans women "as part of the larger diversity of the womyn's community." Given the immediate circumstances of this 2006 statement, a response issued to an unwise press release by a group of trans activists who announced a new Michfest policy without any reasonable basis or authorization from Michfest itself, Lisa Vogel's statement that any trans woman purchasing a ticket would be "choosing to disrespect the stated intention of this Festival" is humanly understandable. However, the new understanding that trans women are women and sisters should have led to a careful reconsideration of policies of unwelcome growing out of the old misunderstanding that trans women were men. The need for such reconsideration is not hard to demonstrate. One of the important Amazon values at the heart of Michfest's purpose, as stated by Laurie J. Kendall in her PhD dissertation _From the Liminal to the Land: Building Amazon Culture at the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival_ (University of Maryland, 2006), p. 260, is the conviction that "[A]ll womyn are valuable." If this is true, then the following logic should prevail: All womyn are valuable. Trans womyn are womyn. Then trans womyn are valuable. The commitment to keep the old policy in place, that trans women are not welcome at Fest, reminded me of the arguments against marriage equality that continued to be made even after any reasonable basis for those arguments had been decisively undermined: the repeal or overturning of sodomy laws; the acceptance of equal adoption for LGBT couples; and even in some States the provision of domestic partnerships or civil unions equivalent to marriage except in rights and dignity. In that area, of course, the recent _Obergefell_ decision was a definitive victory for equality and justice. When I read the Michfest statement of August 18, 2014, I took it as an herstoric step announcing that from that day forth, trans women would be welcome who came with the intention of honoring the traditions of Fest. Regrettably, wanting to be part of a successful implementation of that new policy, I learned within two months that in fact the policy had not changed. Lisa Vogel's decision announced this April 21 not to pursue, at least for now, any future plans for Fest beyond Michfest 40 this August 4-9 may have little to do with the inclusion controversy. Attempts to treat this sad and sobering announcement as either a "victory" for the trans community against Fest's traditional stance on the inclusion issue, or a "defeat" for the Lesbian community, seem to me misguided. As a Lesbian and Second Wave activist, I feel sadness for the end of this great Lesbian feminist event. And as a trans woman, I feel grief that some kind of inclusion within the traditional framework of Fest was not achieved, even if only for Michfest 40 itself. ------------------------------------ 8. Fest and Religious Freedom Issues ------------------------------------ In looking at the Michfest inclusion question as it might affect future versions of Fest (which Lisa Vogel did not rule out in her April 21 letter), or similar types of events, I would like to consider one aspect of the controversy that only became clear to me as I was about to leave the dialogue process: religious freedom. For many women who attend, Michfest may be primarily a women's music festival, one of a number that take place in various parts of the U.S.A. From another perspective, however, many women attending Fest view it also as a sacred space, where various kinds of organized or improvised religious or more broadly spiritual rituals may take place. Indeed, reports indicate that women who do not view themselves as belonging to any religious or spiritual tradition, and who identity as atheist or agnostic, may find themselves moved by the Land to spontaneous rituals which take shape as if of their own accord. Among the various religious and spiritual traditions practiced on the Land during Fest, Dianic traditions hold a prominent place. The Dianic approach in modern paganism focuses on the Goddess known by the Greek name of Artemis and Roman name of Diana, who is connected with the tradition of the Amazons, with hunting and archery, and with feminist self-sufficiency and sisterly power. Any woman, and certainly any Lesbian feminist (trans or otherwise), might feel resonance with this empowering tradition. As it happens, my own spiritual tradition is largely centered in medieval European mysticism, as superbly expressed by Mother Julian of Norwich in the later 14th and early 15th centuries. In the Michfest dialogue process and through the networking that developed, I came to respect and admire how many Fest women lived and embodied the tradition of Artemis or Diana. This experience evoked for me many connections: thus Christine de Pisan in the early 15th century wrote with admiration of the Amazons, and of the dangers of underestimating their martial prowess; and Queen Elizabeth I of England, possibly Lesbian or intersexual or both, was styled Diana to honor her learning and sovereign autonomy. For some Dianic groups and rituals, however, there is a religious requirement that only women who were born with appropriate anatomy take part. For example, the Dianic leader Z Budapest conducts rituals open only to girls and women who menstruate, or have menstruated or will menstruate. The issues raised by such rituals have been discussed and debated among members of pagan religious communities, and there is widespread agreement that a person or group conducting a ritual has the right to decide who are welcome and on what terms. This is indeed a matter of religious freedom. Even in the secular realm, similarly, a Trans Health Conference may have workshops or discussion groups restricted to specific audiences: for example, people who identity as "transmasculine" and are now seeking or intend to seek genital reconstruction surgery. Such criteria are up to the organizers of each session or group. With Michfest, thus, there was a potential tension between the idea of a secular (or not specifically religious) feminist gathering; and that of a gathering in a sacred space where various rituals might take place intended only for "womyn born female" (WBF). From this perspective, welcoming trans women would have required sorting out these secular and sacred aspects of Fest, and negotiating boundaries so that rituals could define their own criteria for participation, and have these criteria respected. With a bit of mutual respect and creativity, I believe that this could have been negotiated quite gracefully. Since similar issues may well arise with various kinds of feminist gatherings, and especially in ones like Michfest taking place in a very conducive space for rituals of many kinds, recognizing that an inclusive event can allow room for a range of events setting their own criteria for participation can be a vital step to peace with diversity. --------------------------------------------------- 9. Looking Ahead: Sisterhood in unity and diversity --------------------------------------------------- Although the Michfest dialogue didn't resolve the inclusion issues raised there, it led me to reflect on these and related issues as they may affect various feminist and LGBTQIA communities, and seek out approaches that can be flexible and empowering for all involved. First, with small groups or individual sessions or events that take place within the framework of a larger gathering, freedom to set criteria and boundaries for participation however the leaders or organizers wish is the norm. Generally such criteria will not be felt as "exclusion," but only as a specific focus for that session or event. When a gathering gets larger and more encompassing, such as a women's music festival seeking to express the diversity of the women's community as a whole, and to explore feminist issues and artforms of interest to a wide range of women within that community, then exclusion from the entire event of a minority such as trans women or intersexual women or Butch women is likely to feel very much like exclusion. And statements that the minority's participation is not "intended," or that the group is less than welcome, also carry a message of exclusion. In contrast, such large gatherings might well feature a range of workshops, caucuses, and even dedicated areas or niches like the Womyn of Color Sanctuary at Michfest to permit "safe spaces" for specific subgroups. These niches or zones permit women with similar experiences to compare notes with each other, while the larger gathering permits also the comparing of notes between women who come from a variety of backgrounds and political stances. Here there are two areas that invite closer examination. First, there is the question of the different forms of gender oppression that women (including nonbinary people who identify at least in part as women) face, and how sisters can support each other with mutual recognition and understanding. Secondly, there is the matter of privilege and oppression, and the related concepts of what I will call vulnerabilities and immunities. A better understanding of these dimensions of feminism and social justice may help in facilitating empathy and mutual support. ----------------------------------------------------------- 9.1. Gender Oppression Against and Among Women: Five facets ----------------------------------------------------------- While any list must be somewhat arbitrary, and above all a starting point rather than last word in appreciating the different forms of gender oppression faced by women under patriarchy, these five sometimes overlapping categories of women who face such oppression is one place to begin: (1) Women who live their entire lives as female assigned. Women who are assigned female at birth (AFAB), raised as girls, and continue to live and identity as women do face some special oppressions and challenges. During infancy and childhood, they undergo female socialization without any option to give or withhold consent, and often little opportunity even in adolescence to question gender assignment or roles and weigh alternatives. In contrast, trans women who are assigned male at birth (AMAB) may voluntarily internalize many roles or expectations for girls or women, but without the coercive element often attaching to negative expectations pressed on those assigned as girls (for example, discouragement of assertiveness or interest in science and math). (2) (a) Trans women who are assigned male at birth (AMAB) and identify as women, experiencing social and often medical transition. Here both gender dysphoria (relating to conflict with an assigned male social status), and sex or body dysphoria (relating to perceived dissonance between identity and physical sex characteristics), present special challenges. Also, trans women face risks of physical or verbal harassment and abuse shared in common with other gender variant or gender nonconforming women. (b) The trans category also includes AFAB transgender Lesbians, for example, who identify as trans as well as often nonbinary or genderqueer, Lesbian, and female. They may also embrace a Butch identity. Here there may be a special vulnerability, and need for solidarity and support, in negotiating some concept of "transition" quite different from the classic "transsexual" model of moving neatly from one binary category to the other. Enlarging our concept of "transition" to fit the realities of those identifying as "transgender Lesbians," AFAB or AMAB, is a liberating endeavor for the entire women's community. (3) Nonbinary or genderqueer women or females (chosen terms of identity may vary), AFAB or AMAB, face special oppression because they are challenging not only conventional gender roles, or assumptions about the immutability of sex/gender, but the whole binarist system of woman/man or female/male as binary and mutually exclusive categories. Allies must learn to question these categories and move beyond them, a matter which extends to the use of preferred pronouns, for example. Nonbinary or genderqueer women or females, if they are visibly gender nonconforming, may be especially likely to face harassment or abuse for this. (4) Gender variant or nonconforming women generally. Butch Lesbian women, for example, although they may choose not to identify as trans or as nonbinary/genderqueer, often face everyday vulnerabilities as great as those of women in these categories. It seems both unhelpful and unfriendly to describe such women as having "cis privilege," when they belong to a group within the Lesbian community targeted early and often for oppression by the patriarchy at large, and also, sadly, sometimes by Lesbian sisters (as with the dress code of the Daughters of Bilitis around 1960). One lesson we can learn from our Butch sisters is that one of the binaries to be challenged is "cis/trans" -- even while we recognize the special aspects of trans or nonbinary oppression. (5) Intersex women face a special oppression, whether AFAB or AMAB, because their bodies were seen (often at birth) as not fitting "standard" female or male categories. During the last two decades, intersex people and allies have mobilized against Intersex Genital Mutilation (IGM), the practice of surgical intervention to "normalize" genitals in infancy or early childhood before the person is old enough either to develop and express a sense of gender identity, or to make informed decisions about the risks and benefits of elective surgery. Here it is informed consent that makes all the difference between violent mutilation and voluntarily chosen surgery for genital reconstruction or transition. Also, even when IGM does not occur, the coercive system of binary assignments and categories at birth and during childhood interferes with an intersex person's opportunity to explore binary and nonbinary options of sex/gender without arbitrary social expectations. Many of these categories can intersect or overlap. For example, an AFAB intersex woman might grow up facing, in addition to intersex issues, the challenges common to women who lives their entire lives assigned as female. Or, they might identity as a genderqueer Butch or Femme Lesbian in a nonbinary category. Many intersex people identity as binary women; just as some nonintersex people identity as nonbinary. Being a woman of color or suffering class oppression or both can make any of these patriarchal gender-related oppressions yet more difficult to deal with: Frances M. Beale as a Black feminist spoke in the 1960's of "double jeopardy," the phenomenon which Kimberle/ Crenshaw formulated as intersectionality in its original sense (the intersecting oppressions of being female and Black). Given the diverse forms of gender-based oppression that women may face, and more positively the range of identities and experiences we may celebrate, sisterhood may depend above all on feminist process: the ability to listen to each other, and to overcome differences or imbalances that otherwise would interfere with equal participation. It is perhaps heartening to recall that feminist process was originally developed, in the early years of the Second Wave, as way to address the unequal participation often noted in small women's groups. Today, these techniques of promoting equality among sisters are as important as ever. ------------------------------------------------------------- 9.2. Oppressions, Privileges, Vulnerabilities, and Immunities ------------------------------------------------------------- Many discussions of feminism and related social justice concerns focus on the concepts of oppressions and privileges, and the fact that each of us experiences some mixture of each. Thus while I may experience oppression as a woman (sexism), a Lesbian (homophobia), or a trans woman (transphobia), I may also experience binary privilege as someone perceived as a binary woman; white privilege (my self-description as an Ashkenazi Jew by no means prevents this!); relative class or academic privilege; and passing privilege if my trans status is not known or perceived. Privileges and oppressions follow a hierarchical and institutional pattern: they operate in one direction at this systemic level. The feminist adage, "The political is personal" invites us to consider the ways that each of us is affected by these larger patterns of privilege. Additionally, there are what I call "vulnerabilities" and "immunities." These do not necessarily fit any simple or hierarchical pattern, but recognize that one woman may feel safe or confident in a situation which is highly uncomfortable or risky for another. For example, as a mostly Femme Lesbian trans woman, I may have little or any problem in using a restroom, a state of relative immunity. However, a Butch woman might be questioned or harassed as a predictable and everyday vulnerability; or likewise an AFAB nonbinary genderqueer. Personal circumstances are often as important in shaping our realities as categorical oppressions. For example, let us imagine a Lesbian woman living during the early 1970's who has a loving partner, a strong and supportive feminist circle to which she and her partner belong, and a progressive literature department where she teachers. Now let us compare her situation with that of a poor woman who is heterosexual, and is trapped in a highly abusive relationship. Using a restroom without being harassed, or being free from domestic violence or abuse, are hardly "privileges" in the usual sense; but they can certainly be at least relative immunities. They do not point to "trans privilege" or "Lesbian privilege" for trans women or Lesbians who happen to enjoy these immunities (as everyone else should, also!). But they do give an important meaning to another feminist adage: "The personal is political." That is, feminism can and should be, from one viewpoint, a process by which we explore our immunities and vulnerabilities, and seek to support each other. Recognizing shared vulnerabilities suggests an opportunity to compare notes and network, finding ways to help each other cope and to seek change. Recognizing shared immunities may lead us to ask who may not be so fortunate, and seek out opportunities to be good allies. And recognizing areas where one of us has an immunity and other a vulnerability may lead to ways in which the more advantaged woman can help the other while learning about aspects of the feminist struggle she has not herself experienced, or in which we can form alliances and coalitions to address the situation. Relative sizes of groups or subgroups of Lesbians or women generally may also be a factor in questions of when intending an event only for members of a specific subgroup may be perceived as the healthy creation of a specialized niche, affinity group, or safe space; and when it may be experienced as exclusionary in an oppressive way. For example, a group of women learning together how to do cervical examinations, or preparing for childbirth, would not currently include any trans women, since with present methods of medical transition they do not have uteri and cannot become pregnant and give birth. However, interestingly, the question might arise of whether trans men who still have uteri, and may become pregnant and give birth as "daddy bleeders," should participate. This would depend on whether the focus of the group was simply cervical care or pregnancy, topics than can apply to some male-identified people (trans men) as well as many women; or whether it was intended specifically as a women's group. Likewise, trans men might feel that their very presence in the latter type of group would involve a kind of misgendering, and might prefer a separate trans men's group where they could affirm their maleness while addressing these health issues. However, there could also be an informed decision to have a group on cervical care or childbirth welcoming all people, regardless of sex/gender category, who have the relevant health need. In this scenario, it would be very important to recognize and affirm the gender identities and preferred pronouns, etc., of all participants; and to understand that these traditional women's health issues, which they remain, are also men's health issues for affected trans men. Recognizing one side of this reality in no way "erases" the other, but puts both into a better perspective. With small groups, boundaries may be drawn in many ways without creating a feeling of exclusionary oppression, because only a few people in a community not included within the scope of a given group are needed to form another comparable group with its own autonomous space. Likewise, caucuses within a larger group or community or event can meet to share specific common experiences or concerns, and then report back to a larger session or community where there can be dialogue and solidarity. Feelings of exclusion and even oppression may arise when a much larger group of women, sharing far greater collective resources, tell a smaller and more vulnerable group of women to "start your own event." It is not a question of which group of women, say Lesbian feminists who are not trans women as compared to those who are, are "more oppressed," a comparison which may be in any event elusive, given the critical role of intersectional factors like race, class, and ableism. Rather, it is a question of recognizing, for example, that Lesbian feminist trans women will be able to enjoy and contribute to really large Lesbian feminist festivals like Michfest only if they are included. For smaller events, whether devoted to the experience of childhood female socialization or to the varieties of "transition" experienced by self-identified transgender Lesbians (whether AFAB, AMAB, and/or intersex), this consideration does not arise, and we would speak of specialization rather than harmful exclusion. Being aware of hierarchical patterns of oppression should go hand in hand with being aware of our immunities and vulnerabilities, and assuming that every woman we meet has her own unique situation. One of the lessons of the Michfest dialogue experience is that mutual aid between sisters can be a transforming force for liberation. Margo Schulter 24 July 2015 Corrected 8-10 August 2015