The Gender Identity Movement: A Western Take on Male Supremacist Religious Zealotry

I moved to Switzerland from France in 1991, at the age of 12. The Swiss were obsessed at that time with the book Not Without My Daughter. People constantly brought it up to me. It didn’t help that I wasn’t just Iranian–my parents were divorced, my dad was Iranian, my mom was American. From the vantage point of a Swiss villager who had just read about the barbarian, bloodthirsty, knuckle-draggingly sexist Muslims half a world away, it probably seemed like I had jumped off the page. I lived with my Iranian dad and his Iranian wife, so I was like an alt-version of the little girl in which her mother had accepted to leave without her. (I’m not kidding about the bloodthirsty thing. A classmate asked me in all seriousness if it was true that Iranians had swimming pools filled with blood.)

I was a bit fired up about racism that year. I think it was the following year that saw the beginning of my consciousness in regards to sexism and how narratives around sexism can be intertwined with racism.

We had a civics class in which the teacher would open questions for discussion. I was the only girl who would participate; the discussions were otherwise entirely dominated by the boys. I might not have thought much of this if the teacher hadn’t been so frustrated with it (incidentally, she had also recently immigrated from France). She would urge the girls to participate, which would shut them down even more. This led, shortly after, to my first realization on the need to question established truths on sexism in the East and West. I was at my stepmother’s parents’ house and the adults were talking politics. My stepmother’s father had been the first president of Iran, and politics were a common topic. One of the women shared an opinion, and the men listened. There was nothing remarkable about this scene–except for the contrast I suddenly noticed with my experiences at school.

I realized that girls at school didn’t only avoid “serious” topics. When we spoke in any context, the boys would laugh at us and talk over us. Compare that to the Iranian men who were acting like a woman’s opinion had a place in the conversation. In retrospect, I realize that it’s not entirely fair to compare the behavior of teenage boys to those of adults (on the other hand, it is noteworthy that, as Islamic revolutionaries, these were the type of Iranians that Westerners might assume never let a woman speak). Regardless, I took from it a valuable lesson: to observe rather than to believe established truths, and more importantly, to observe outside the box.

By circulating narratives about various groups, media and popular discourse shape what we believe to be true about these groups. More insidious, they also select and narrow down what we even think to observe, what we hold up for comparison. Is it a given that women’s relative freedom of dress should be the litmus test of equality? I’m not one to defend the hijab as feminist, but the reflexive way in which it has often been pointed to as the end-all of oppression is largely the result of propagandizing. I moved to Switzerland only a year after full voting rights were extended to all Swiss women. In school, we were shown surveys with people who were still not on board. Why was my attention not driven to this as the barometer of women’s progress? Growing up with a conservative Middle Eastern father, I was undoubtedly more limited in some ways than my peers, but it is not black and white. For example, intellectually and career-wise, the Swiss put more limitations on girls, with a strong attachment to traditional norms that dictated that we were not suited to go into STEM or aim for leadership roles. Yet when Westerners drew comparisons between themselves and Iranians, the hijab eclipsed all else.

What gets honed in on is not random but rather based on social and political factors, including the geopolitical goals of those crafting the message. A look around the globe yields endless examples of systemic, egregious misogyny and institutional sexism. Which of these examples get our attention, whether or not we frame them in relation to the social identities of the perpetrators, and which of their social identities, is usually informed by and further validates our representations of certain groups.

 

From a young age, I’ve heard Westerners state as self-evident that Iranians/Middle Easterners/Muslims don’t see women as equal, don’t allow women any freedom, don’t allow women to work or have any independence, and more. I’m not saying that these ideas aren’t connected to some truths. I won’t argue that Saudi Arabia is just like Sweden. But. Common perceptions of Iranians/Middle Easterners/Muslims suffer from a serious lack of nuance. Religion is just one factor among several that determine how conservative a given population will be. The Swiss are a case in point. In my opinion, the rurality of the country contributes to maintaining a level of conservativism beyond what is expected for a wealthy, Western society. Furthermore, sexism manifests in different ways throughout regions and cultures. I’ve traveled widely as an interpreter, speaking and sharing rooms with women from mostly poor rural backgrounds from every corner of the world. I’ve carefully translated stories about what women and girls face as females in a patriarchal world, from Nicaragua to Uganda. The notion that the Muslim world is homogenous and that in every respect, it is “the worst” that this world has for women is simply wrong.

The stereotyping of the Muslim world carries with it the stereotyping of the West, too. In matters of sex-based rights and oppression, the Muslim world is constructed as the ultimate “other”. The West is seen as modern, enlightened, egalitarian, and Western women as liberated. Just as the nuances and diversity of the Muslim world are erased in an imagined homogenous extreme, so too are the nuances and differences within the West flattened into an equally homogenous, but opposite, extreme. While Western feminism has achieved important improvements for women’s lives, institutional sexism has not been stomped out and misogyny is still rampant. And things got worse in the last decade. While the Right has attacked women’s rights in the expected ways, the Left has arguably done as much to erode woman’s gains, including by undermining our ability to organize at all.

 

The project of feminism is to recognize, analyze, and remedy the fact that being born in a female body is to experience systemic oppression. A person born with a penis does not belong to the category of people that experience this oppression, regardless of whether said person has some “internal sense” of being a woman, and regardless of whether this person is oppressed or suffers for other reasons (plenty of men suffer for plenty of reasons–that is not in dispute). When sex is replaced with gender identity, we lose the protections for which feminists have fought. We even lose the foundation and raison d’être of feminism: the recognition that sex is a basis of oppression. The adoption of gender identity ideology in law and policy means denying the existence of, and the right to name and organize for, any definable female constituency or political category at all. The adoption of gender identity ideology in culture and society has shamed, gaslit and bullied women away from working on their own liberation. The overturning of Roe v. Wade was not the sole doing of the Right, notably because in the years leading up to it, American liberals had systematically worked at de-centering women from the focus of feminists and feminist organizations. The transformation of the Women’s March into the People’s March is but one example of this regressive trend.

Self-ID is one of the main points of contention for feminists, and the past decade saw it rammed through in many countries with virtually no public debate or awareness. “Self-ID” means that a person’s declaration is the only criteria that determines what “sex” or “gender” they are considered (sex and gender should not be, but commonly are, used interchangeably). Most of the public still has the notion that a “transwoman” is a man who has had his penis and testicles surgically removed, takes hormones and presents himself in a “feminine” way. In reality, self-ID policies allow any man or boy at any point to declare that he identifies as a woman or girl, and consequently, to access the spaces and resources that were once reserved for women or girls. All women and girls are harmed by this, and the most vulnerable and marginalized women, e.g. those in prisons and homeless shelters, are more so.

When Bret Baier interviewed Kamala Harris on Fox News, he asked about taxpayer funded surgeries for transgender prisoners. He neglected to ask about male prisoners who are transferred to female prisons without any surgery (not to imply that these transfers are ever acceptable). His focus was the burden on the taxpayer; he expressed no similar concern for the burden on female prisoners. In California, Gavin Newsom signed into law SB 132, a bill that allows male prisoners to choose to be housed in female prisons based solely on self-declared identification. Predictably, this resulted in cases of sexual assault; while feminist organization WOLF sued the state of California, the ACLU defended the bill. Today, after hearing about the trauma endured by female inmates, the California State Senate voted against a bill that would keep male sex offenders from being housed in women’s prisons and provide a separate space for trans-identified males. The argument for SB 132 by its author, Senator Scott Wiener, was that male violence is a serious concern (for other males), yet today he dismissed women’s concerns around male violence as “ridiculous”. The United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners and the UN Rules for the Treatment of Women Prisoners and Non-custodial Measures for Women Offenders both recognize the vulnerability of female prisoners and mandate that they be kept in separate institutions from male prisoners. But Kamala Harris handwaved the issue brought up by Bret Baier as “negligible” and offered zero acknowledgement of the costs of gender ideology to the dignity, safety and human rights of female prisoners.

 

Gender ideologues believe that humans have innate “gender identities” and that we should redefine the words “woman” to no longer mean “adult human female” but instead to mean “one who has an internal gender identity of “woman”’. There is no proof of the existence of innate gender identities, but even if these were proven to be real, it does not follow that the words woman and man should be redefined on the basis of this newly discovered attribute of the mind. The words woman and man have always referred to the biological state of being female or male, i.e. to one’s reproductive function. Feminists have been fighting to maintain these definitions, but in a way, this is not the real issue either. Shuffling semantics do not change the reality of sex-based oppression, and ideally, modern education would have endowed people with the ability to discuss issues abstractly.

Rightly or wrongly, until very recently, it was uncontroversial to name humans whose reproductive organs are organized around producing eggs, “women” and “girls”, and humans whose reproductive organs are organized around producing sperm, “men” and “boys”. Whether or not it was wrong, ignorant or bigoted to name them that way, it is undeniable that that is how these words were understood by virtually everybody. It is with these definitions that there was a meeting of the minds in any policy and legislation that used the word “woman” or “girls”. Hypothetically, if as a society we were to decide that we want to now change the meanings of “woman” and “man”, it does not follow that we do away with what was signed, understood, and agreed upon in our legislation or policies. Instead, we would need to update these documents so that their language stays consistent with the meaning to which the parties agreed (e.g. swap out “woman” with something like “potentially egg-producing humans” or “those whose reproductive organs used to be called female”). To do otherwise is to undo the legislation or policy in question, without transparency or public debate. Likewise, to replace “sex” with “gender identity” in Title IX, would have amounted to nothing less than doing away with Title IX.

One certainly has the right to argue that we live in a world in which people with a “man gender identity” (rather than people with penises) have historically oppressed people with a “woman gender identity” (rather than people with vaginas)–but those who make this case need to do so clearly­, and ideally provide data. Instead, they’ve befuddled the public with semantics games and stomped out all attempts at debate. The confusion and silencing surrounding gender identity ideology has allowed transactivists to ride on the coattails, and appropriate the work and arguments, of feminists, while undoing what feminists fought for.

Women have been losing our rights in plain sight and Western “progressives” have refused to acknowledge what is happening, in part because it conflicts with their self-image. It makes sense to them that Afghans or Iranians would resist advances made by the women in their countries. That women’s path towards equality in the West is also not linear, that it also draws backlash, and that much of the present backlash has been rubberstamped by Western liberals is, on the other hand, unthinkable. And yet the similarities with countries like Iran and Afghanistan are actually striking, because the trans/gender identity movement is not only misogynistic, it is based on a quasi-religious belief system. Genderists often describe gender identity as something akin to the soul, or they ascribe gender to the mind or soul. There is nothing verifiable about the existence of innate gender identities nor about which of these identities a given individual experiences; it’s all about belief (and forcing that belief onto others). (And again, whether or not gender identity is real is wholly irrelevant to the social organization and power structures that define patriarchy. “Women” who were born with a “woman’s soul” and a penis were afforded the right to vote before vagina-havers, along with every other penis-haver.) In addition to their beliefs, the zealotry, undemocratic tactics and violence of transactivists also place them in the camp of male supremacist fanatics.

Bat with barbed wire at the Degenderettes exhibity at the San Francisco Public Library in 2018

The woke love to associate anything they don’t like with white supremacy and I am wary of jumping on that bandwagon, but in this instance, I think there is a legitimate case to be made for a white and Western supremacist bias. We are witnessing a backlash against feminism driven by a male supremacist neo-religious movement. If women in the Middle East were seeing the same unraveling of their gains, if feminists there were undergoing the same systematic and rabid attacks, the same censorship, the loss of jobs, the physical attacks when they gather to speak of their rights, it would be so easy for Westerners to name what was going on.

‘A woman in the Iranian Parliament will be suspended from her position in a political party for 9 months for speaking in public about women’s rights. Oh wait sorry, small typo. In the Victorian Parliament, in Australia. Oh and a member of the “conservative” Liberal Party.’ This 2023 tweet by an Australian commentator captures the dismay that many of us have felt both at the political repression of feminists in the West and the accompanying hypocrisy. There are many cases of women being investigated or arrested for questioning or opposing (or appearing to question or oppose) gender ideology. In the UK, a woman was visited and interrogated by the police merely for taking a picture of a sticker critical of gender ideology.

In 2015, the BBC made a documentary about Iran’s lesbians and gays being pressured to undergo sex-change operations, and Westerners denounced what was happening in Iran as homophobia. But Western institutions pathologize gender non-conforming children­ to such an extent that they mutilate these children, sterilizing them in the process and turning them into lifelong medical patients. These crimes against children are allowed because of rigid gender norms (of which homophobia is an integral part).

Six years ago, The Times reported that five NHS clinicians who had worked at the Tavistock’s Gender Identity Development Service had quit due to ethical concerns, notably that their therapy constituted a form of conversion therapy for gay children. According to The Times, ‘so many potentially gay children were being sent down the pathway to change gender, two of the clinicians said there was a dark joke among staff that “there would be no gay people left”.

Westerners manage to look at this and tell themselves that what they are seeing is “tolerance” and “acceptance”. War is peace. Mutilating and sterilizing gender non-conforming children so that they are a simulacre of the opposite sex is “allowing them to live as their authentic selves”. Sexism and homophobia are ignored, minimized or reframed as progressive–as long as they come from Westerners.

(As an aside, transactivists never explain why they have opposite standards and narratives for adults and children. Why is it that in the case of adults, we are told that gender identity has nothing to do with biology, that a penis is as much of a “female organ” as a vagina, and that to associate womanhood with wombs or vaginas, or to expect trans-identified males to be have body dysmorphia and/or to alter their bodies before accessing female spaces, is heinous transphobia… But when it comes to children, the script is flipped and it is a matter of life and death that gender identity and biology be forced to align in the traditional sense. We are told that children will kill themselves if we don’t block their natural puberty and modify their bodies (curiously, we are never presented with data on suicide rates of trans youth before the advent of hormone blockers, cross hormones and “sex-change” operations). By the adult standards of the trans movement, to deny a trans girl the possibility of becoming a trans woman with a functioning, fully-grown penis; to deny a trans boy the opportunity to grow into a man with breasts and the capacity to give birth; to make the bodies of trans-identified children wrong rather than to recognize that any type of body is valid for any gender identity, is transphobia.)

Another way that the gender identity movement courts white and Western supremacy is in who it has centered. With the achievements of liberation movements of the past century, belonging to an oppressed or marginalized group came to carry a certain clout in some circles. The fundamental power structures of our society have barely changed though, so wealthy white men and privileged western youth found ways to maintain and gain social status by positioning themselves at the top of this new hierarchy. Affluent people, cosplaying as oppressed, hijacked the momentum that had been built for the liberation of those who experience true oppression. They even hijack the sympathy earned by the trans people who are indeed oppressed and victims of violence, such as trans-identified males who are victims of violence in Latin America (largely as a result of homophobia and being marginalized to the point that they are pushed into the sex industry, which is inherently violent). Straight white trans-identified males in the US (many of whom are indistinguishable from any other man) do not face the same violence, but co-opt the stories of those who do. When self-proclaimed leftists started to devote orders of magnitude more resources to trainings on pronouns and the navel gazing of upper/middle class youth of the world’s most wealthy and powerful country, they aligned themselves more with neoliberal forces than with the workers and oppressed of the world.

In her analysis of what she calls “queer colonial extractivism” in Latin America and especially Argentina, Maria Benetti notes the central role of influential foundations and NGOs, and argues that “the progressive and inclusive rhetoric was the frame in which neo-liberal queer entrepreneurship entered in Latin America. From then on, the legal, political, and cultural discourse began to adjust to the self-identity and constructible model that gender identity presupposes.” In leftist and liberal circles in the US, there is an oft-repeated belief that feminist movements of the past were especially lacking when it came to including and advocating for women who were not white and upper/middle class. This narrative is so seeped into collective consciousness that anything that resembles it is automatically taken to be true, and any proposed remedy is automatically taken to be righteous. Likewise, stories about the successive struggles of various oppressed groups, and the meeting of resistance at every step, are central to how we think of recent history. It was then easy for “trans” to get slotted into the role of the new civil rights frontier, and for women who oppose the abandonment of the core tenets and project of feminism to be cast as reactionary. Continuing the discussion on Argentina, Raquel Rosario Sanchez notes that, ‘Around the world, advocates for “gender identity” policies do not campaign openly as the men’s rights movement that they represent. Campaigners camouflage trans rights as simply a subset of the women’s liberation agenda. Although cynical, it should not surprise us that at a systematic level, their first steps are usually to co-op the institutions that feminists have long-fought to establish: women’s services, feminist organisations and yes, ministries of women.’

One imagines aid dollars being used to address extreme humanitarian need in poor and war-torn countries–but critics have long pointed out that foreign aid is complex and often a tool for soft power and market expansion. It’s worth noting that one of the victims of Trump’s budget cuts was Stonewall UK, a transactivist British non-profit that lost six hundred thousand dollars in funding from USAID. (Stonewall UK is infamous for turning its back on homosexuals, in spite of its name.)

 

I was born in California and, with Silicon Valley pioneers as grandparents, my Bay Area roots are deep by American standards. (The scholarship that is in my grandmother’s name, and that was established to help female engineers follow in her footsteps, is still very much needed–and very much pointless if males can claim it.) Growing up and living in Europe until my thirties, California and Iran were both my “origins”. After a lifetime of being told how terrible Iran is, it’s the Californian in me that saw my homeland strip away the human rights of women and children and lead in the globalized backlash against feminism. From Silicon Valley to Hollywood and the porn industry, we craft and export culture for the whole world, and what we’re exporting is misogyny. Not to make light of Iran’s repression of women, but the world doesn’t look to Iran to tell it what’s hip. California sets new trends, new norms and new milestones of “progress”. If the United States has positioned itself as the pole of liberal values in the last century, California is the US twice over. And with social media platforms (including Reddit, Medium, WordPress, Youtube and Twitter) having systematically censored feminists over the course of a decade, it’s not just about soft power but the hard imposition of the edicts of Silicon Valley. Jo Bartosh wrote in 2019, ‘In the UK, and indeed across most of the globe, what social-media giants consider “misgendering” might be deemed impolite, but it is not a crime (yet). By compelling users to adhere to a policy which is based in ideology, not reality, social-media mega-corporations are seeking to engineer new social norms. This is undoubtedly a new form of cultural imperialism, whereby the social-justice warriors of Silicon Valley set the parameters of acceptable debate.’

From my early teens, I became aware that the fight against sexism is weaponized for racist and imperialist ends. The Israeli and American genocide in Gaza has made this as horrifically glaring as ever. It took me twenty more years to begin to see that the fight against racism is also weaponized–to keep women in their place. Moving to the US was key to my understanding of this, because the way in which “white women” have been conceptualized and vilified in American progressive culture has much to do with the gaslighting and defanging of feminists.

I have often seen the following question pop up: How is it that a movement that is so obviously by and for the affluent, presents itself – and is believed by many Western progressives to be – about the most oppressed? Raquel Rosario Sanchez wrote ‘If white feminism is a thing, gender identity ideology epitomizes it’. True, but simultaneously, the white/POC binary confuses the issue. When I started frequenting American leftist and “woke” circles, I noticed that the people who most talked about privilege often seemed to be blind to it. US-centrism plays a role in these incongruities, notably because Americanness is so normative that it is often invisible to Americans, so only other identifiers are salient to them. Americans also often assume that their norms and realities are universal, and American liberals tend to keep to circles where racial diversity hides the fundamental homogeneity of the milieu, and where “people of color (POC)” who typically are American citizens, are part of the same elite subcultures and have the same educational backgrounds as the white Americans of those milieus, are taken to speak for the “POC” and the “marginalized” of the world. The white/POC binary is relevant at times, but by insisting on seeing everything through this lens and only through this lens, many Americans remain oblivious to the variables that often matter more, as well as to the realities outside their bubble. Among other things, this lens erases class and it erases a Global North/Global South framework. Furthermore, POC are actively recruited to be the face of whatever needs selling. We’ve seen this in the political sphere and I’ve seen it up close in the animal rights circles in which I was active. One black man I knew was very open about the fact that he called himself a vegan only because he was paid to do so, so as to counter the perceived whiteness of the vegan movement.

 

In the last election, I voted for Jill Stein. It was not with a full heart, because I was voting for the lesser of three evils. Jill Stein’s platform was excellent on many issues but she, too, failed women, and the sexism of the Green Party is well entrenched. In 2020, the Georgia Green Party signed the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights, and as a result was kicked out of the national Green Party and smeared as transphobic. The national Green Party could have taken the opportunity to also sign the declaration and align themselves with the goal of women’s liberation, instead they doubled down on their anti-woman stance.

Jill Stein’s VP pick was Butch Ware, a Muslim convert, who has announced his campaign for Governor of California in 2026 as a Green Party candidate. Ideally, Butch Ware would have had solidarity with Muslim women (if not all women) and, for example, push back against policies that would force Muslim women to share changing rooms with a man. It’s not likely, given how quickly he backtracked when AOC criticized him for saying that biological males should not be in women’s sports. He immediately took to X to affirm his support for men in women’s sports and his party’s “2SLGBTQIA+ Rights” platform.

One area of concern with the Green Party ticket was Jill Stein’s promise to “prevent and repeal any legislation that purports to protect religious liberty at the expense of the rights of others”. The Olympus Spa in Seattle is a woman-only spa at which nudity is expected. A man brought the spa before the Washington State Human Rights Commission for excluding him from the space, and he won (the spa fought back and the case is now before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals). At a panel discussion on this issue, advocate and former candidate for State Representative Susanna Keilman said that many Korean women had stopped going to the Olympus spa, and she spoke of her fear that her culture, history and traditions were being eliminated. Does Dr. Ware believe that, if this were a Muslim-owned spa that served Muslim women, the spa should be forced to open their doors to people with penises, as long as these people identify as women?

In Canada, Jessica Yaniv, a trans-identified male with intact male genitalia, sued several female estheticians for refusing to wax his genital area. The Justice Center for Constitutional Freedoms, which represented five of the estheticians, reported that at the hearings, Yaniv “contended that immigrants use their religion to discriminate against trans people because they refused to wax the male genitals of those who identify as women” and that the Human Rights Tribunal had found that Yaniv had a ‘“grievance” against certain ethnic groups and targeted them out of racial animus to “punish” them for their cultural and religious views’. If a similar scenario were to arise with Muslim estheticians in the United States, does Dr. Ware believe that they should be forced to handle male genitalia, as long as the owner of said genitalia identifies as a woman?

 

Iran forces women to veil themselves in the presence of men; in the US, women and girls are being denied the right to not undress in front of men and boys. In San Francisco, trans rights (men’s rights) activists recently subjected two spas to social media uproar, protests, smoke bombs and complaints to the SF Human Rights Commission, following the spas’ mild efforts to maintain some level of sex-segregation. Both spas have since folded (though one of them still offers men the right to privacy from women). Leftists and liberals pretend to care about Muslims, but they lost their minds at the thought that a spa would provide Muslim women the opportunity to use their facilities, penis-free. Archimedes Banya recently announced their once-monthly Women’s Day would be limited to “biological women” so as to accommodate the religious beliefs of women in their community. Uproar ensued. The spa course-corrected by announcing two monthly “women’s nights”: an “inclusive” one and a female-only one, which they named “cultural and religious night women’s night” and that was “designed to provide a space that aligns with the needs of women from religious or cultural backgrounds who observe practices requiring a female-only environment based on sex assigned at birth.” This was still unacceptable to activists, who protested the first (and last) of these events. Reddux reported that one of the protesters, portrayed sympathetically by the media, is a convicted rapist. The monthly male-only night was not subject to controversy and is still on the schedule. An article about the Imperial Day Spa blithely quotes a trans-identified male about his “hurt” after he was told that a female employee “didn’t like” performing a treatment on him; it is clear that this employee was not warned that her client would be male. There is no acknowledgment that what is being described is sexual assault of the female employee. Her “hurt” doesn’t matter.

My aunt has experienced both above mentioned systems. She grew up in Iran as the eldest of eight siblings and emigrated to the US at the age of 18. She strove to build a life that was radically different from what she had seen of the lives of women growing up. Always independent, she’s never been married and is now 80, very fit, and lives in San Francisco. She recently encountered a man in the locker room as she was coming out of the shower at the San Francisco Presidio YMCA. When she complained to the YMCA staff, they were condescending and dismissive. My aunt told me: “When you are from Iran, it feels like whenever you want to do something, it needs to be ratified by the men. Then when you come here, even though you know that there is sexism, it feels theoretical. You still feel like you are free to make your life and do what you want to do. When this happened at the YMCA, I felt for the first time that we are just as limited here, that we only ever have what the men deign to give us, and we’re supposed to just take it and say thank you. We are truly 2nd class citizens.”

In her letter to the YMCA, my aunt asked “What about my rights, don’t I matter?” Her words echo those of a 17-year athlete who asked her California school board “what about us?”, after she was forced to share a locker room with a trans-identified boy. When females young or old, white or “of color”, homeless, in prison, or whatever, ask liberals “do I matter?”, the answer is a resounding NO. Andrea Dworkin said that right-wing men see women as private property and left-wing men see women as public property. Where are the politicians willing to step out of this paradigm and affirm women’s personhood?

None of our political parties represent women’s interests–though I wouldn’t say that electoral politics have zero impact. The vast majority of Americans disapprove of the demands of transactivists (in my experience, even some fundraisers for the ACLU become upset upon learning about the work that the ACLU does to push gender identity ideology). This dissatisfaction was leveraged by the Republicans to ensure their win. The new administration’s Executive Orders on gender identity, starting with “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”, are a win for women–but the broader picture is bleak (for women and almost everyone else).

It goes without saying that Trump, Vance and Musk are simply another flavor of misogyny. Conservatives have benefitted from erasing feminists from the picture so as to portray themselves as leaders in the fight against gender ideology and turn the public towards conservatism. Gender critical feminism is a continuation of second-wave feminism, i.e. the feminism that first articulated a critique of gender as a harmful social construction, the feminism that was born from the leftist movements of the 60s and 70s. It is gender critical feminists who have followed the issues around gender ideology from the start, who have produced the analysis and built platforms to share it, who have fought censorship and sanction, who have taken the risks and received the backlash. I would wager that most still consider themselves somewhere on the Left.

By erasing this part of the Left, the Right was able to portray itself as the only pole of sanity and funnel the public to itself. For a time, the Left (or leftist men) also benefited from making feminists invisible, because it allowed for misogyny to win out and put women back in their place (which on the Left entails being champions and workhorses for every cause except that which is specifically their own). People who saw themselves as progressive and who had doubts about the progressiveness of gender ideology, looked around, didn’t see anyone in “their clan” who opposed gender ideology… and concluded that their concerns were either unfounded or that it was best to not voice them. (For years, I had the nagging thought “is this not just gender essentialism?”, but I repeatedly told myself that there might be something I was missing.) Conformity was achieved by creating the illusion that the vast majority of people, or at least the “good people”, were on board. The façade is now crumbling.

Many who care about women’s rights wanted to give the Democrats their vote–they simply asked that the Democrats offer something slightly better than the Republicans and they did not feel that the Democrats were listening. I do have hope that things can change; the UK Supreme Court has just ruled that the legal definition of woman is based on biological sex, and the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights has found that UPenn violated Title IX by allowing men to compete in women’s sports and occupy women’s spaces. However, at this time, women in most of the world do not have a political home. We have been working at the grassroots to rebuild political power, coming together powerfully across nations. We’ve had to start again from scratch: to re-explain that sex-based oppression exists and why feminists before us fought for what they fought for. This time, we’re also wading through the defenses of liberals who sold out women’s rights while smugly calling themselves “inclusive”. If the Left wants to finally ally itself with women, it will require a real moment of consciousness-building. They looked forward to the day where they would be congratulated for being “on the right side of history”, but the reckoning that the present day actually requires, is for Western leftists and liberals to face their sexism.

A man entered the YMCA locker room when my aunt was dressing. This is her letter to the YMCA.

My aunt is a member of the YMCA in San Francisco. A few months ago, a man entered the locker room as she was getting dressed. When she shared her concerns, the staff was condescending and dismissive. The YMCA lectured my aunt on “inclusivity”, but denying women the right to privacy from men is the opposite of inclusive. The reason for the creation of female spaces such as these was to include women in places and activities from which we have historically been excluded. As Sheila Jeffrey said, all space becomes male space unless females maintain a concerted effort to mark a space for themselves. Allowing males unfettered access to female spaces, denying women the right to any boundaries, is regressive and sexist. In her letter to the YMCA (copied below), my aunt wrote: “I put on some clothes in the open area of the showers (with no privacy screens) and went out to complain to the front desk, burst into tears, unexpectedly, shaking; I felt violated, nobody cared.” This is not “inclusion”.

This incident happened in late January but I heard about it a few days ago because I met my aunt for Sizdah Beh Dar at the Presidio Tunnel Tops. She was coming from her yoga class at the Presidio YMCA a few steps away. Since it was cold, we picnicked in the covered area (next to the restrooms and the restaurant Il Parco). The Tunnel Tops park is gorgeous and the covered space offers a way to take advantage of the views when it’s cooler or windy. I love biking and working outdoors, so I used to spend a lot of time in that area. I still go there fairly often, but since they replaced the single-sex restrooms with mixed-sex ones a few years ago, my visits are shorter.

Gender ideology activists act dumb, but they know that most women don’t want naked men in their changing rooms, so the YMCA dupes their female patrons by not putting up signs informing them that their locker room is mixed-sex. Gender ideology activists act dumb, but they know that there is a difference between single-sex and mixed-sex bathrooms, and so unlike every other multi-stall restroom in the Presidio (which are single-sex), the stalls at the Tunnel Tops restroom have no gap between door and frame. It’s not enough of course, and there are often women and adults with children in line looking uncomfortable or confused. Gap or no gap, not many women want to wash period blood off their hands while random men use the sinks next to them. Feminists fought for women to have the right and the opportunity to participate in sports and public life. Places like the YMCA and the Presidio can help people live healthier and happier lives, but these places are becoming, once again, less accessible to women as the new misogyny takes over.

Last month, a naked man harassed a petite 82 year old woman in the Berkeley YMCA locker room after the woman asked him to cover his genitals. A YMCA employee referred to the woman as “uneducated”. It is the staff at the YMCA that is uneducated on what it is to be female in the world, and why female locker rooms exist to begin with. Rather than lecturing women who feel violated as a consequence of YMCA policies, the folks at the YMCA should listen to these women and “educate” themselves.

My aunt’s letter to the YMCA:

February 7, 2025 

Chris – 

I was at the YMCA Presidio last Friday morning, Jan 31, 2025; had a good workout, felt energetic, and looked forward to a cup of coffee with the walkers. Took sauna and a shower, and while putting on my intimates, this big guy walks in and takes a locker near  mine. I couldn’t move, mostly because of the shock and also because of the proximity. I  asked him, in disbelief, what he was doing in the women’s locker room [what are you doing here?] and he says “if you are asking me if I am allowed, yes I am.” Frankly, when I was coming out of the sauna, I had heard a man’s voice, and a bit of his back, a man accompanied by a woman, and I thought something must be wrong with one of the locks and here is a handyman accompanied by a staff member to break the lock. The thought  had also crossed my mind that no announcements were made that a man was entering the area. Subsequently, coming out of the shower, while dressing, a man walks in on me…. 

I put on some clothes in the open area of the showers (with no privacy screens) and went  out to complain to the front desk, burst into tears, unexpectedly, shaking; I felt violated, nobody cared. I have never been in a domestic violence situation but at that moment I felt the pain a woman must feel when violated – tears, shaking, loud, in disbelief begging to be heard. I could tell from the ‘surprise’ look on the front desk staff member that he too was shocked. Then I reported the man’s presence to a blond woman, who called in the manager (Stacey? Tracy?). The manager said that it was the Y’s policy to be Inclusive of all its members. The look on her face was patronizing, dropped voice, like lecturing me about something religious, apparently trying to calm me. I told her that “but there are no signs” and that they couldn’t just allow it haphazardly, and that Trump had just put a stop to all  that stuff……she says something like “I will put a sign”, “do you want me to put a sign”, “I  will.” And I thought that this woman is clueless; what kind of question is this? Is it for real?  Doesn’t she know that there should be a sign? She is asking me? definitely a poor execution of Y’s policies. And I am thinking that here is this idealist putting a man in an 8×15 area and  she is now trying to calm me and to show me the light! What about my rights, my civil rights, don’t I matter? At that point, I truly understood the anger and hurt that people felt and voted against the Democrats. They didn’t matter…and I got it, with my own personal  experience. 

I finished dressing in the bathroom in the reception area and left.  

YMCA’s Inclusivity and gender-conscience policies allowing biological men into Women’s locker room is, in my opinion, reverse discrimination. If the Y wants to be so fashionable and include those with transgender identities in single-sex bathrooms/locker rooms, they should offer accommodations for those with male bodies who identify as women, and they should not do so at the expense of women’s rights to safety, privacy, and dignity. Lawsuits have been filed against gyms that have allowed men into women’s locker rooms, e.g.,  Planet Fitness, Crunch Fitness – locker rooms are private spaces – there is potentially criminal and civil liability for the Y. 

Given that many acclaimed institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution are  abandoning and/or evaluating their DEI policies, mostly as the result of lawsuits, and  privately settling, I respectfully ask the YMCA of Greater San Francisco to reevaluate its gender-conscience policies to permit biological men to use locker rooms designated specifically for women.  

Yours truly,  

—-

#WomenRise: The Power of Global Solidarity

I used to speak and write a lot about the grassroots, especially in the context of food system change. The power of the grassroots, the importance of the grassroots, the importance of keeping things grassroots, etc etc. I admit that sometimes I would pause and ask myself if I really believed what I was saying or if I was just going through the motions–all the more as I saw the obstacles faced by the grassroots.

This past Friday was a true testament to the power of grassroots activism, even when one faces a Goliath. Women have been fighting big money, tremendous bias, media that ignores us and social media giants that have repeatedly censored us. And yet we still managed to speak to each other and organize with each other. No wonder the Taliban don’t want women hearing women’s voices. It’s like the water that gets through and around the boulder.

When I met Chema in the early 2000s, he was an independent media activist. Where he was squatting was also an Indymedia center. To witness that and then to see how independent media was overtaken by mega corporations run by tech bros was depressing enough – to then also see, as soon as I got involved in feminism online, how quickly those tech giants silenced and shut women out was chilling. I am referring to Youtube, WordPress, Twitter, Google Play, Reddit, Medium, and I’m sure I’m missing some (I’m not going to link stuff now but feel free to contact me for articles on any of these).

To see then how women have nonetheless managed to speak, and connect, and be heard, and raise awareness, and find solidarity, and organize, and have an impact, is amazing. This past Friday, as Germany’s repressive, regressive, wholly misogynistic Self-ID law went into effect, women from East to West rose up and said NO. We went to German consulates and embassies, and those who couldn’t posted pictures online. Grassroots activism doesn’t have to be about getting hundreds or thousands into the streets; there are so many ways that one can build a powerful movement and that something relatively small or accessible, like posting a picture with a hashtag, can have a big impact. The importance of creativity in particular shouldn’t be overlooked.

Image

I was at the SF protest, joining women across national borders and also ideological ones. Indeed, the SF protest was organized by Women Are Real and WOLF, which was founded by Lierre Keith, author of The Vegetarian Myth, and Lierre joined us in SF. I have a lot of respect for Lierre as a writer and organizer, however, outside of feminism, I don’t merely disagree with her views; she is an important part of a whole trend that I spent years critiquing and organizing against (mostly in the form of growing a movement for veganic farming). Those disagreements stand, but movements and actions need people and focus. November 1 was the day to come together and focus on women and the harms of Self-ID.

My aunt also came out in support of German women. On the topic of small things that make an impact: Over the years I had mentioned my objection to gender ideology to my aunt, and while she agreed it was all BS, I didn’t think she was keeping abreast beyond what regular media covered. Then the last time I saw her, I said something to the effect of gender ideology being about misogyny and she exclaimed “Of course it’s misogyny!” and went on about “all these men” who say they’re women. I was a bit surprised – where was this coming from? – but carried on. Then when I mentioned I was going to the WDI convention, she knew it was in Atlanta. Huh? It turns out that she’s been on the WDI mailing list since I forwarded one of their fundraising emails to some of my contacts years ago (I think it was the fundraiser I mentioned in Shabe Yalda, or why I paid $12 for Nancy Pelosi to read about women’s rights).

If you need some inspiration this week, check out the hashtags #WomenRise and #SelfIDHarms on X, and watch (and share!) this beautiful video.

 

Read more: Rocking the Reichstag by Josephine Bartosch

Some memories of less violent times (and a women’s space) in Chiapas

It’s sad for me to hear about the violence that has overcome Chiapas. Already back in 2018, the last time I was there, my friend Pilar told me grisly stories about what women there – women that she personally knows – had experienced and witnessed. Now there are increasingly more articles about the cartel violence that has made its way to the land of the Zapatistas. I found this one informative. I have been thinking about this because of a recent article about the assassination, in San Cristobal, of a priest who was an advocate for indigenous rights.

I started this blog at the beginning of a 6-week stay in San Cristobal in 2016*, but that was not my first time there. I spent about 3 months in Chiapas in the early 2000s and also went back for a few days in 2018 for the first women’s encounter convened by Zapatista women.

The first time around I spent about a month in a small Zapatista community – it was so different from what I saw in 2018! We had no electricity or running water. I would cook beans after making a fire with leña. I would use the onion and garlic we had brought from San Cristobal, but I would feel a pang of guilt when I’d share my beans with the villagers (all hermanos and hermanas) who always stopped by our place, as they would say things like “muy sabrosa su comida”… because they didn’t have much access to onions, garlic or anything else. I’d also use chili peppers but learned to tone it down as the people in that community did not eat spicy food and I didn’t want my beans to be too spicy to share.

On the subject of leña, my friend Patrick and I would always admire the muscular arms of the hermanas, because every day they chopped leña. Their arms were like tree trunks. I had met Patrick back in Switzerland during our preparatory workshops to go to Chiapas as human rights observers, and we ended up getting sent to this particular village together. Patrick’s Spanish was better than mine at the time, and he was much better read on Zapatismo and everything else, so he would spend a lot of time talking with people, including one of the two pairs of unmarried sisters of the village. He got some indication that marriage was of interest to one of them and he would muse about staying in Mexico and growing a little milpa. As a Swiss, he was seen as less macho and potentially a better husband than the local men. Those two sisters were feminists and unmarried, but Patrick was maybe the kind of man with whom marriage could be possible.

Indeed, the Zapatistas might have embraced feminism but that doesn’t mean that attitudes completely changed overnight. I was also the object of some interest: some of the young men asked Patrick if I was a virgin, presumably to see if I was marriage material. Patrick told them that he didn’t know and they should ask me directly. They never did, thankfully!

There was another pair of older unmarried sisters who grew tobacco and rolled puros. They’d come give us a taste, “like any good dealer” as Patrick would joke, and we spent a lot of our time sitting around and smoking those homegrown puros.  I might still have some in my old boxes. We also rolled our own but mine were pretty bad and I kept having to relight them, so I was happy to purchase theirs. My theory was these two were also shamans or some sort of healers, but I would not have been privy to that. I do know however that shamanism was part of the local social fabric. One of the women who led the workshops we attended before going to Chiapas was an anthropologist by training, and she initially went to Mexico in that capacity. She shared how her sister had suffered severe, debilitating depression and had been cured of it by a shaman in Chiapas. She warned us however against prying.

For bathing, we had to walk a ways to get to the river. There was a different spot for men and women, and self-conscious as I am, I just had to deal with it and take my shirt off in front of the other women. One time an hermana pinched my boob and said “que hueros tus chichis!” Getting to and from the bathing spot always made me anxious because there were cows grazing and they were very aggressive, they would sometimes run after you and stare you down. The villagers would say to be careful of the vaca loca. I would skirt around the field as much as I could, and luckily, nothing ever happened (aside from being scared out of my mind). To this day I am still afraid when I pass cows and especially bulls while hiking.

The annoyances are fond memories now, because I am glad I got to know a little bit of that world. Like the last night I spent in our shack, lying there worried that scorpions would fall on me. Our walls were just wooden planks with gaps between them. There was a strong storm so the wind was blowing inside, and we had given up on trying to light candles. Scorpions and tarantulas were common in that area, and I had seen a couple scorpions that evening on our walls or ceiling. I lay there worried that as the whole structure shook, any scorpions that might be above me would be shaken loose. Thank the Goddess, that was not so, and the next day we made our way back to San Cristobal unscathed, wading through deep mud.

My trip in 2018 was shorter but powerful. Zapatista women convened a women’s encounter – for “mujeres que luchan” – and while they expected about 1500 women, about 6000 showed up. We absolutely made do. We had enough food, the bathrooms weren’t great but we survived, we made connections and we got to be in a wonderful male-free environment for several days, with Zapatista women patrolling with their uniforms and weapons to make sure there were no men (they are soldiers after all).  There were talks, activities and art and photography exhibitions (many of which would have been deemed “white feminism” by wokesters in the US). I attended a talk that featured a recorded message to our gathering from a Kurdish fighter in Rojava, during which she stressed that women’s oppression is the first colonization. A good message, and one that American wokesters would again dismiss as white feminism if they heard it from a “white” woman.**

The ignorance and mind-addling ID politics of Americans are what they are–at least some American women got to hear these ideas and experience this sort of space in a way that they could actually hear and experience them (if not entirely accept them). It didn’t escape me that this was just a few years after Mitchfest shut down. As someone both of American and Iranian origin, I can say in no uncertain terms that just as whitewashing is a thing, brownwashing is also a thing.  But again, it is what it is. While some will have the need to see this space as something that only indigenous women have ever built, it does not take away from the fact that the space and experience were truly very special.

The last night we got treated to a party and a show, with theater (one skit on the harms of prostitution coming to indigenous communities) and music (ski-masked Zapatista women with electric guitars felt like a world away from my little Tojolabal village of yore, where to have a party meant that we danced some sort of awkward two-step to a rythmless marimba). At the end of the program, everything went completely dark. We stood there waiting. Then, hundreds of candles were lit, held by the Zapatista women who were standing around us. They gave a powerful and moving speech that stayed with me for days.

Well, I don’t know exactly what it is that stayed with me; it could have been the words that were spoken, it could have been the impressive spectacle effect, maybe some sort of ritual power had been raised, or maybe it was the whole experience of my days spent there… I don’t know. What I can say is that for days afterwards, I felt an opening in my chest, unlike anything I had experienced before or since. I believe something happened to my heart chakra, an opening, a healing, something. While I don’t know exactly what I was feeling and what caused it, I believe that healing and accessing other experiences can happen when women take time to be away from men.

Holding their candles, the Zapatista women asked that as we go back into the world, we always carry the light that they were giving us, that we remember that we are not alone but in sisterhood, that we continue our lucha.

I have been wondering whether I should restart Seed the Commons, and how best to go about it. I think that the decolonial perspective that Chema and I brought to the table can still be useful. I’ve been a bit taken aback recently by the lack of sensitivity (and integrity) around racism, sexism and colonization from the white Canadians I’ve come in contact with. (I apologize for being so specific, but this is the truth.) It think it is showing me possible directions for future projects. I will see.

I still carry the lucecita you gave me, hermanas.

* So many belated thanks to Pilar for helping me access indigenous communities for my research and for taking me on hiking outings! You helped make my trip a success.

** I use quotes sometimes when using these words not to imply criticism but to indicate that I am referring to the way Americans use these words, which might not be my own default way of using them or the default way of other people. The way Americans use terms like white, brown, black, POC… tends to be US-centric (and tautological), which is fine, but not universal (this is not evident for Americans as US-centrism leads them to take as given that their language, premises and ways of categorizing the world are universal).

Finding our Footing in the Animal Liberation Project

When Direct Action Everywhere (DxE) started its activism in the 2010s, it was one of the most inspiring things that I had seen. It still gives me hope, even though I also saw how blocked they got–internally, externally, both through their own fault and the fault of others…

Many vegans reacted negatively to DxE from the get go – before their bigger controversies – because of the discomfort that vegans often have with the strong “speak out” type of behavior that DxE was known for (like marching into a Chipotle to loudly decry the animal cruelty behind the “humane meat” branding). Vegans would often rather be nice and bake cookies. That also has its place, but it’s not enough.

I heard of DxE early on. We hosted one of their first meetings at our anarchist space in the Mission in San Francisco. There were only a handful of people. I don’t know what they discussed, but I was happy to offer some support (as we did for other liberatory organizations; that was one of the goals of that space).

I had been vegan for almost two decades and in that time, I had gone through some changes in my own views and approach. I had come to see animal liberation as something that would need go deep into the “how” of changing social norms. My views had come, in part, from being around ex-vegans and ex-vegetarians (and being an ex-ex-vegan myself), as well some study on the dynamics around minorities and change (and some reflection on my own experiences as various flavors of minority).

So for example, I was no longer interested in making some great case about how veganism would save the world, or to strengthen my case by adding to an ever-growing number of “reasons to go vegan”. The vegan’s usual speech of “animals + health + planet” is deemed more effective the more they tack onto the list: social justice! racial justice! capitalism! the oceans! the obesity crisis! etc. The goal is to build up to a glorious checkmate.

It appeared to me that no matter how convincing a case one made, first of all, many people won’t prioritize it. I know that flying is harmful, yet I fly. Likewise, one can know about the harms of bacon for the climate, and still eat some bacon. Secondly and more importantly, there was always the potential that someone would come up with a counter-case that, rightly or wrongly, would be convincing to many. Immediately after the movie Cowspiracy came out, Kiss the Ground was made as a response. So my question was, how do we get off this treadmill? How do we get people to see eating cows as no different than eating dogs?

If we weren’t truly internalizing that cows aren’t food, there would always be the potential for them to be turned into food in the future. When vegans or vegetarians went back to “eating meat” or “eating animals”, they never started to eat all animals. The norms they grew up with stayed with them; they deemed “meat” only the animals that our culture designated as such. Clearly, even when these people were vegan, they had still categorized the cows, pigs and chickens as separate from the non-food animals.

My work with Seed the Commons (STC), the organization I co-founded, was based on these ideas. Around the time that DxE was gaining steam, STC was starting to build awareness and a social movement around veganic farming. On the surface, the work of the two organizations may have seemed very different, but in my mind we had the same fundamental approach, which could be characterized as, “What would it look like if veganism were normative? If vegans were the majority?”

My primary strategy was not to put forth veganics as a great solution (though in some contexts, such as climate talks, it is appropriate to do this too). Rather, as we worked to wrest food systems from corporate control and to promote alternatives that were sustainable and just, we took our vegan ethic to be normative. At our yearly forum, our speakers covered a wide range of issues, and many of them were not vegan. However, when it came time to speak of the agricultural foundation of a better food system, all the speakers were vegan.

Our first forum featured a panel of veganic growers and was the effective launch of a huge amount of organizing around veganics – but the main point was that this was a panel on agroecology whose speakers happened to be vegan. I had spent a decade regularly traveling as an interpreter for La Via Campesina–I was well aware that agroecology is not usually conceived of as vegan. But how about we decide that in our space, veganism is our ethic, and see if we can find agroecologists who work within that framework? How about we position ourselves not in a vegan silo, preaching to the choir about all the ways that veganism is beneficial, but instead at the helm of a comprehensive movement for food system transformation? Back in 2015 it took some effort, but we did find speakers who practiced agroecology without farmed animals or their inputs, and we put together a panel on agroecology working within the framework of tomorrow’s norms.

This had the benefit of putting forth a vision for what agriculture could look like after animal liberation. The animal rights movement was not doing this at the time (in fact they were quite resistant to it), and the void was being filled by folks whose agricultural models not only included animal exploitation as a default, but who fought against animal liberation by claiming that closed-loop farming could not be done in a vegan way. Not only were we undoing this false narrative, we were putting ourselves and veganic farmers in leadership positions in this movement for food system transformation, flipping the whole thing.

Going back to the Cowspiracy v Kiss the Ground face off–what if we rejected that paradigm? What if we made space for the arguments and vision of regenerative grazing proponents, but with our ethics? Could it be done? It seemed like it could.

If we want to liberate cows, pigs and chickens from the shackles of the “farm animal” construct, it helps to look into how we, as vegans and as activists, still carry the distinctions that set those animals apart. Going vegan is one important step, but even as vegans, as people in a minority position, we often bow to dominant norms in other ways. For example, we might openly condemn cruelty towards dogs or other humans, but as much as we empathize with cows, we might assure our friends that we “respect their choice” to eat hamburgers, lest we be branded as judgmental. Judgment is rarely seen as a bad thing when it aligns with the majority (or a strong-enough minority). Another example is the need to make veganism about something other than what it really is about for most of us: our empathy for animals.

Seed the Commons used to offer veganic gardening workshops that were taught by a young veganic farmer, Matt Loisel. He had become vegan right after completing his training to be an organic farmer. At the time, there was precious little information about veganics online, so he and his wife had to painstakingly figure things out on their own. He initially went vegan because he watched Cowspiracy, i.e. for the climate, but his empathy for animals increased once he eschewed the ways he had been taught to exploit and kill them. He used to say “if I were to find out now that being vegan was bad for the climate, I would still be vegan”.

Likewise, DxE put animals front and center. Their analysis was usually spot-on, their campaigns and actions were incredibly well-crafted. They raised their voice as we do for dogs, as we do for humans, as we do when we have not been taught to censor the movement of our empathy. DxE was forcing the conversation on what is always the crux of the issue, that is: what right do we have to own and abuse these animals? By what criteria is it said that their suffering doesn’t matter? Why these animals in particular? These are the questions that are always avoided through a dizzying array of deflections. Most vegans chase the deflections; they would spend days defending themselves against accusations that vegans are all privileged, white, judgmental or that they don’t care about humans. It’s more rare for vegans to name the deflection (in these examples the ad-hominem) and bring the conversation back to the topic that the carnist is avoiding. DxE did this through their activism and helped activists gain the courage and clarity to do this in their personal conversations.

Some will say things like “nobody was ever convinced by being shouted at” and “you win more people with honey than vinegar”. To that I have to say that these people really don’t know what drives change, including in themselves. We all have stories of the book or the person who changed our mind, and we all have stories of the person who was so off-putting that we immediately rejected what they said. But there is more to changing minds than that. When vegans choose to shout or protest or clearly tell someone that eating animals is wrong, they are not being obtuse. They are taking into consideration other factors that change minds and social norms, with an awareness that this takes time. You might be initially repulsed by a bunch of folks shouting in a Whole Foods, or by that obnoxious co-worker who won’t sit at the table when others are eating meat. But the repulsion itself also happens as part of a given social and cultural context, and that context is slowly transformed by the cumulative effects of actions such as those mentioned above.

I think that DxE has done a lot of good, but the obstacles they faced limited how much of an impact they could have. I never joined them because, as much as I admired their activism, I saw in their internal culture and functioning things that I knew would be a problem for me. Later on, I was also the recipient of some unsavory behavior from them. So I don’t idealize them–far from it. But for the sake of animals, let’s stop letting personal dislikes or conflicts cloud our analysis. It’s important that we be able to discuss the merits of their activism without getting sidetracked by the things they have been accused of. I’m not saying that these accusations should be ignored. I am saying that they should not be used as an excuse to not discuss, in an unbiased manner, DxE’s tactics in their own right. It seems like this should be obvious, but when I was active in the movement, a real frenzy and taboo had been built up around DxE. While I believe that some of the accusations have merit, it was also glaringly obvious that they were victims of a smear campaign (at least one).

One of the weaknesses of the vegan and animal rights movements is that most of its members had no experience in other progressive or leftist movements and, as a result, were unprepared for the challenges that activists commonly face. I believe that this was one of the reasons that some became so easily galvanized in trying to take down DxE.

At Seed the Commons, we avoided getting involved in movement politics. While we never worked with DxE, we also didn’t exclude them or reject their invitations. For this, we received quite a bit of backlash. Wayne Hsiung (one of DxE’s founders), spoke at our 2016 forum, and years later the ED of another organization secretly tried to get Seed the Commons excluded from conferences under the pretext that we had once invited Wayne to speak. This also points to issues that go beyond the animal rights movement, including the territoriality that can emerge when social change becomes an industry and the authoritarianism and cancel culture that came to define “social justice” in the 2010s. When STC invited other organizations to endorse one of our campaigns, one authoritarian made her endorsement contingent on DxE not endorsing the campaign. Imagine if every time you signed a petition you first made sure that none of your enemies had signed it. DxE had not been invited to sign because that campaign was not relevant to them, but looking back I should have been less gracious in my response to such an irrational demand.

One of the interesting dynamics I witnessed was when an organizer told me that she had canceled Wayne’s talk at her conference – against her own judgment and desire – because she had been pressured into doing so. Then, in the most circular manner, the people who pressured her to exclude DxE used the fact that DxE had been excluded from this conference to bolster their case against DxE, as if the organizer had taken this measure of her own volition.

Getting into all of this would take a whole essay, or more likely a book, and I probably don’t know half of it. What I see though is that we can learn from DxE’s strategies. Researching the obstacles DxE faced would also produce an enriching resource for those of us who work towards animal liberation and any other progressive cause in a time of social movements and non-profits. Why were so many vegans averse to DxE’s tactics? Why were some keen to gatekeep? How did DxE’s own dynamics hold them back and hold back others? Who was behind the smear campaigns and why were these so effective? And so on. I hope that someone will take on this project. In the meantime, there are many ways that all of us can start shifting norms from where we are.