June 2025
Announcing Lesbian Business Listings
Are you a lesbian who owns her own business? Would you like to let the world know about your business, what goods or services it provides, and that it is proudly lesbian owned?
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus is compiling a free listing of lesbian-owned businesses worldwide as a resource for sisters who would like to hire sisters. We aim to launch it later this month to celebrate Lesbian Pride, and we will update it from time to time as we receive new listings or receive notifications from you that your listing has changed or is no longer active.
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus is compiling a free listing of lesbian-owned businesses worldwide as a resource for sisters who would like to hire sisters. We aim to launch it later this month to celebrate Lesbian Pride, and we will update it from time to time as we receive new listings or receive notifications from you that your listing has changed or is no longer active.
The goods or services listed do not need to be specifically lesbian; we welcome plumbers, gardeners, home care providers, lawyers, doctors, and more! Listings will be grouped by geographical location.
The application to list your business is here.
- The Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted. We will use only this definition in determining who is a lesbian for purposes of this business listing.
- WDI USA reserves the right to decline or remove a listing at any time or for any reason, at our sole discretion.
- By accepting a business listing, WDI USA is not endorsing any product or service offered.
- Women’s Declaration International (WDI), of which WDI USA is the US chapter, is an international women’s-rights organization whose principles are enumerated in the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights. Before completing our business listing application form, please make sure that you are comfortable with our principles.
- The public nature of the WDI USA Lesbian Business Listings carries both benefits and risks. Readers around the world will have access to your listed business information, including the fact that your business is lesbian-owned. Only you can make the determination as to whether the benefits of having your business on our list outweigh the risks.
The application to list your business is here.
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
June 2025
The original interview was published in German in May 2025
The English version was published on the WDI UK website.
The original interview was published in German in May 2025
The English version was published on the WDI UK website.
UK Court Ruling - a German perspective
The British Supreme Court's ruling on "For Women Scotland Ltd v The Scottish Ministers" in April this year made waves (if not headlines) in many Western countries. The German Women's Rights platform Was ist eine Frau? (WIEF) interviewed Lesbian Action Center LAZ reloaded e.V. board member Gunda Schumann (GS) on the ruling's importance for women/lesbians in Germany.
WIEF: Ms. Schumann, you are known as a feminist lawyer and activist who has been campaigning for the rights of women, girls and lesbians in particular for decades. On April 16, 2025, the British Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling on the Equality Act of 2010. The decision reaffirms that "sex" and "woman" in the Equality Act have always meant "sex" and "woman" according to the biological definition. The long-standing practice of granting men the status of "woman" via a "Gender Recognition Certificate", with far-reaching consequences, was therefore a breach of the Equality Act. Can you briefly explain what this ruling is about and why it is so important from a feminist perspective?
GS: The Supreme Court ruling is about the interpretation of laws (1). The focus is on the question of how the above-mentioned terms "woman", "female", "gender", etc., are to be interpreted in the EA 2010 (Equality Act). The case law and methodology (language, contextual and historical interpretation) used for this are complex. What is important is whether the terms used by Parliament in the EA 2010 to protect women and trans people from discrimination have a coherent and predictable meaning. The result is that the aforementioned terms in the EA 2010 are based on biological sex. This is "binary"; there are therefore only "women" and "men", which is "self explanatory". This logically means that people of the male sex who have a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) do not belong to the protected category of "sex", which protects biological women. Trans people are independently protected from discrimination by the category "gender reassignment".
The Supreme Court's ruling is significant from a feminist perspective because the practical merging of sex and gender identity which the Scottish government has even enshrined in law, means that decades of discrimination and harassment of women who are gender-critical or simply want to be among themselves, has been abolished in one fell swoop. This is now applicable law, which must be put into practice after 15 years of applied transgender ideology (2).
WIEF: The ruling strengthens women's rights and thus also reserves spaces such as women's prisons, women's showers or women's sports for women only. A socalled "Gender Recognition Certificate" (GRC) no longer allows men to use women's spaces. Feminist international law expert Alessandra Asteriti nevertheless criticizes the fact that the terminology in the ruling remains ambiguous, which creates legal uncertainty. Do you share this criticism and where do you think clearer terminology is needed?
GS: Alessandra Asteriti criticizes, among other things, that the Supreme Court has not defined the term "gender (reassignment)". Is gender (social sex) an "assumed sex", is it equivalent to biological sex or is it something else, e.g. a belief? Can "other attributes of gender" that are assumed also be e.g. name, clothing or hair? That would point to gender role stereotypes. Ms. Asteriti fears that the lack of a definition of "gender" versus "sex" could cause the necessary demarcations to falter again and create problems in practice. The Supreme Court also uses language that stems from transgender ideology (e.g. "trans woman", "trans man" instead of "transsexual"; "aquired gender" is used synonymously with "aquired sex". Under the heading "Living in the assumed gender", the Court mentions a case in which the need of a person with a female gender identity for a "functional penis that enables an erection and genital sexual reactions" is at issue).
I am also critical of the use of transgender terminology but consider the definition of "sex" as "biological" and binary and the distinction between "gender reassignment" and sex to be sufficient to restore women's rights in practice, especially as the UK does not have a "self-ID" law.
WIEF: As we understand it, the ruling also makes it possible to exclude women with a GRC "male" from women's spaces in justified individual cases. This corresponds to the frequently cited example that women have manipulated their bodies with testosterone and plastic surgery to such an extent that they appear male and could cause irritation in women's toilets or, in particular, violence protection facilities for women. Could you explain in more detail how the ruling provides clarity for these cases of conflict?
GS: One of the guiding arguments as to why the Supreme Court assumes that "sex" in the EA 2010 is about biological sex is pregnant or breastfeeding women with a male gender identity. In their reproductive capacity, they would be discriminated against as biological females from certain health care services provided under the EA 2010, contrary to the entire purpose of the EA 2010.
On the other hand, the court states that masculine-looking women with a male gender identity can be excluded from sex-specific facilities for women without being able to claim discrimination under the "gender reassignment" criterion.
However, the Supreme Court does not go any further into the practical consequences of its ruling. On the internet (https://knowingius.org/p/sexhas.always-meant-biological-sex ), it is suggested that trans people should be provided with separate services and premises (3).
WIEF: The Supreme Court also took into account a statement by the LGB Alliance, Scottish Lesbians and Lesbian Persistence. You are also a leader in the organization LBOR International (Lesbian Bill of Rights International). How do you rate the ruling for the rights of lesbians and especially for their right to assemble without men, which is currently banned in Australia, for example?
GS: The ruling is undoubtedly a "landslide victory" for lesbians in the UK as it restores their dignity. LBORI celebrates this! The definition of "lesbian" has connotations with the term "woman". "Lesbian" and "gay" refers to samesex orientation. The court is convinced that the access of men with a GRC to lesbian spaces renders the concept of sexual orientation meaningless. It is clear from the ruling that lesbians who wish to congregate in whatever form may lawfully exclude men, whether they have a GRC or not. However, some lesbians also warn of the hateful reactions of the transgender community to the ruling (Jenny Willmott, [email protected] ).
The Australian Sex Discrimination Act does not define "sex" in biological terms but has replaced it with a self-declaration of sex. For this reason, the plaintiff Lesbian Action Group (LAG) finds it difficult to enforce freedom of association for lesbians as biological women.
WIEF: The ruling has made big waves in the UK, and the Netherlands also recently overturned its self-determination law. What consequences could the Supreme Court's ruling have internationally - especially for countries that have introduced or are planning to introduce gender self-identification laws?
GS: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's ruling has no direct consequences for countries that have already introduced self-ID (including Germany) or are planning to do so. At best, it can serve as a positive example for the recognition of sex-based women's/lesbian rights and provide arguments for those politicians who are willing to take action against discrimination against women/lesbians.
WIEF: The EU continues to promote "gender identity" as a legal fiction and is even expanding its influence. Do you think that the Supreme Court ruling can also persuade the EU to change its position and how could influence be exerted at EU level to strengthen the gender-based rights of girls and women again?
GS: The EU will be unimpressed by the ruling because the UK has left the EU. Now it is up to the women's (organizations) at European level (e.g. European Women's Lobby) to exert political influence. The newly founded organization WoPAI (Womens Platform for Action International with the Swedish Women's Lobby as initiator) could also be a player.
WIEF: In Germany, the Self-Determination Act (SBGG) has allowed anyone to change their sex entry by self-disclosure since November 2024 - an approach that the British ruling now calls into question. What impact could the ruling have on the German legal situation, in particular on the SBGG?
GS: As already mentioned, the UK does not have a self-ID law, whereas Germany does. Here, too, it would be primarily the politicians of the Union (CDU/CSU) who will be in power in the future who would have to bring down the Self-ID Act, or at least drastically reform it. The arguments on discrimination against women and lesbians due to the confusion of sex and gender identity through incoherent terminology can be found in abundance in the judgment. These would have to be taken up accordingly by Union politicians with social pressure from gender-critical women.
WIEF: Unfortunately, the German press has predominantly reported in a very one-sided way and framed the story in such a way that "trans women are denied women's rights", so-called "trans children" no longer have a right to exist in the UK and USA and JK Rowling supported and financed the procedure out of pure hatred for "trans people". This one-sided and distorted narrative is also being spread on social media by influencer accounts. The media has a huge influence on opinion formation. How can this one-sided portrayal be counteracted and the importance of sex-based rights for girls and women be strengthened in the public consciousness?
GS: The starting point in Germany would be the increasing tendency to restrict freedom of opinion. The media lawyer Ralf Höcker has written an excellent article on this problem in the Berliner Zeitung.
To combat the restriction of freedom of expression, the initiatives of politicians who stand up for women's rights and gender-critical women are needed to counter the woke bubble (see https://www.laz-reloaded.de/aktuelles/).
Note: The articles in Cicero (Faika El-Nagashi, 19 April), NZZ (Niklaus Nuspliger, London, 16 April), and WELT (17 April) are informative.
WIEF: The SBGG is often referred to by critics like you as a 'men's rights law' because it endangers women's safe spaces. Could the Supreme Court's ruling help to abolish the SBGG, and if so, in what way?
GS: Unfortunately, the ruling of the British Supreme Court can hardly help on a legal level, as the legal bases in the two countries are completely different. The UK has no self-ID law, but a transgender ideology that has covered all areas of society like mildew since 2010. It will take some effort and time to change all this in favor of women/lesbians again. In Germany, transgender ideology is not yet as widespread as in the UK, but we do have a self-ID law. The Federal Constitutional Court's departure from the binary concept of gender enshrined in Article 3 (2) of the Basic Law in favor of self-determined sex (4) does not bode well for any constitutional complaints by women/lesbians.
That leaves only the political and social campaign level in Germany to turn the tide on the SBGG.
WIEF: The AfD parliamentary group's spokesperson on family policy, Martin Reichardt, reacted immediately to the Supreme Court ruling and called for the abolition of the SBGG. The CDU/CSU, on the other hand, have not commented at all on this court ruling, although they had also expressed their desire to abolish the SBGG during the election campaign. All that remains in the coalition agreement is the plan to evaluate the law by 2026. How do you assess the stance of the two parties on these issues and how do you see the chances of a decision being reached?
GS: The abolition of the SBGG announced in the CDU/CSU election manifesto will not be enforceable in the black-red coalition. The CSU/CSU women are strong (e.g. Dorothee Bär, Susanne Hierl, Sylvia Breher), but not strong enough. Once the Federal Government has been constituted, gendercritical women/lesbians should contact the new family/education minister as soon as possible in order to increase the chances of a critical evaluation based on the criteria set out in the coalition agreement (5) :
WIEF: With the ruling in mind, what strategies would you suggest for seeking the abolition of the Self-Determination Act in Germany? Are you thinking of legal, political or social approaches - and how do you assess the influence of the many grassroots organizations? Do you also believe that a women's ministry under Silvia Breher will help to reassert women's rights in Germany?
GS: I am thinking primarily of political and social approaches. Grassroots women's/lesbian organizations are good, but they need to take the fight of gender-critical UK women as a model and work better together. Above all, there must be no pause for breath in the fight against the SBGG. I am not in a position to judge whether a family/education ministry under Karin Prien can help women's rights in Germany to be asserted again. The EMMA article paints a fairly positive picture ("We should focus more on the universality of human rights and stop splitting up minorities and minority rights."). As far as I know, Karin Prien comes from the "liberal camp" of the CDU in Schleswig-Holstein. Whether this gives cause for hope, I cannot judge at the moment.
WIEF: Finally, what hope does the Supreme Court's ruling give you for the future of women's rights, and what would be your most important advice to women and girls in Germany who want to fight back against the effects of the SBGG?
GS: My most important advice to women and girls in Germany who want to defend themselves against the effects of the SBGG: Take joint action and stick together! There needs to be a constant flow of information, perhaps by establishing a newsletter, as well as continuous public criticism of the negative effects of the SBGG on women/lesbians and girls.
GS: The Supreme Court ruling is about the interpretation of laws (1). The focus is on the question of how the above-mentioned terms "woman", "female", "gender", etc., are to be interpreted in the EA 2010 (Equality Act). The case law and methodology (language, contextual and historical interpretation) used for this are complex. What is important is whether the terms used by Parliament in the EA 2010 to protect women and trans people from discrimination have a coherent and predictable meaning. The result is that the aforementioned terms in the EA 2010 are based on biological sex. This is "binary"; there are therefore only "women" and "men", which is "self explanatory". This logically means that people of the male sex who have a GRC (Gender Recognition Certificate) do not belong to the protected category of "sex", which protects biological women. Trans people are independently protected from discrimination by the category "gender reassignment".
The Supreme Court's ruling is significant from a feminist perspective because the practical merging of sex and gender identity which the Scottish government has even enshrined in law, means that decades of discrimination and harassment of women who are gender-critical or simply want to be among themselves, has been abolished in one fell swoop. This is now applicable law, which must be put into practice after 15 years of applied transgender ideology (2).
WIEF: The ruling strengthens women's rights and thus also reserves spaces such as women's prisons, women's showers or women's sports for women only. A socalled "Gender Recognition Certificate" (GRC) no longer allows men to use women's spaces. Feminist international law expert Alessandra Asteriti nevertheless criticizes the fact that the terminology in the ruling remains ambiguous, which creates legal uncertainty. Do you share this criticism and where do you think clearer terminology is needed?
GS: Alessandra Asteriti criticizes, among other things, that the Supreme Court has not defined the term "gender (reassignment)". Is gender (social sex) an "assumed sex", is it equivalent to biological sex or is it something else, e.g. a belief? Can "other attributes of gender" that are assumed also be e.g. name, clothing or hair? That would point to gender role stereotypes. Ms. Asteriti fears that the lack of a definition of "gender" versus "sex" could cause the necessary demarcations to falter again and create problems in practice. The Supreme Court also uses language that stems from transgender ideology (e.g. "trans woman", "trans man" instead of "transsexual"; "aquired gender" is used synonymously with "aquired sex". Under the heading "Living in the assumed gender", the Court mentions a case in which the need of a person with a female gender identity for a "functional penis that enables an erection and genital sexual reactions" is at issue).
I am also critical of the use of transgender terminology but consider the definition of "sex" as "biological" and binary and the distinction between "gender reassignment" and sex to be sufficient to restore women's rights in practice, especially as the UK does not have a "self-ID" law.
WIEF: As we understand it, the ruling also makes it possible to exclude women with a GRC "male" from women's spaces in justified individual cases. This corresponds to the frequently cited example that women have manipulated their bodies with testosterone and plastic surgery to such an extent that they appear male and could cause irritation in women's toilets or, in particular, violence protection facilities for women. Could you explain in more detail how the ruling provides clarity for these cases of conflict?
GS: One of the guiding arguments as to why the Supreme Court assumes that "sex" in the EA 2010 is about biological sex is pregnant or breastfeeding women with a male gender identity. In their reproductive capacity, they would be discriminated against as biological females from certain health care services provided under the EA 2010, contrary to the entire purpose of the EA 2010.
On the other hand, the court states that masculine-looking women with a male gender identity can be excluded from sex-specific facilities for women without being able to claim discrimination under the "gender reassignment" criterion.
However, the Supreme Court does not go any further into the practical consequences of its ruling. On the internet (https://knowingius.org/p/sexhas.always-meant-biological-sex ), it is suggested that trans people should be provided with separate services and premises (3).
WIEF: The Supreme Court also took into account a statement by the LGB Alliance, Scottish Lesbians and Lesbian Persistence. You are also a leader in the organization LBOR International (Lesbian Bill of Rights International). How do you rate the ruling for the rights of lesbians and especially for their right to assemble without men, which is currently banned in Australia, for example?
GS: The ruling is undoubtedly a "landslide victory" for lesbians in the UK as it restores their dignity. LBORI celebrates this! The definition of "lesbian" has connotations with the term "woman". "Lesbian" and "gay" refers to samesex orientation. The court is convinced that the access of men with a GRC to lesbian spaces renders the concept of sexual orientation meaningless. It is clear from the ruling that lesbians who wish to congregate in whatever form may lawfully exclude men, whether they have a GRC or not. However, some lesbians also warn of the hateful reactions of the transgender community to the ruling (Jenny Willmott, [email protected] ).
The Australian Sex Discrimination Act does not define "sex" in biological terms but has replaced it with a self-declaration of sex. For this reason, the plaintiff Lesbian Action Group (LAG) finds it difficult to enforce freedom of association for lesbians as biological women.
WIEF: The ruling has made big waves in the UK, and the Netherlands also recently overturned its self-determination law. What consequences could the Supreme Court's ruling have internationally - especially for countries that have introduced or are planning to introduce gender self-identification laws?
GS: Unfortunately, the Supreme Court's ruling has no direct consequences for countries that have already introduced self-ID (including Germany) or are planning to do so. At best, it can serve as a positive example for the recognition of sex-based women's/lesbian rights and provide arguments for those politicians who are willing to take action against discrimination against women/lesbians.
WIEF: The EU continues to promote "gender identity" as a legal fiction and is even expanding its influence. Do you think that the Supreme Court ruling can also persuade the EU to change its position and how could influence be exerted at EU level to strengthen the gender-based rights of girls and women again?
GS: The EU will be unimpressed by the ruling because the UK has left the EU. Now it is up to the women's (organizations) at European level (e.g. European Women's Lobby) to exert political influence. The newly founded organization WoPAI (Womens Platform for Action International with the Swedish Women's Lobby as initiator) could also be a player.
WIEF: In Germany, the Self-Determination Act (SBGG) has allowed anyone to change their sex entry by self-disclosure since November 2024 - an approach that the British ruling now calls into question. What impact could the ruling have on the German legal situation, in particular on the SBGG?
GS: As already mentioned, the UK does not have a self-ID law, whereas Germany does. Here, too, it would be primarily the politicians of the Union (CDU/CSU) who will be in power in the future who would have to bring down the Self-ID Act, or at least drastically reform it. The arguments on discrimination against women and lesbians due to the confusion of sex and gender identity through incoherent terminology can be found in abundance in the judgment. These would have to be taken up accordingly by Union politicians with social pressure from gender-critical women.
WIEF: Unfortunately, the German press has predominantly reported in a very one-sided way and framed the story in such a way that "trans women are denied women's rights", so-called "trans children" no longer have a right to exist in the UK and USA and JK Rowling supported and financed the procedure out of pure hatred for "trans people". This one-sided and distorted narrative is also being spread on social media by influencer accounts. The media has a huge influence on opinion formation. How can this one-sided portrayal be counteracted and the importance of sex-based rights for girls and women be strengthened in the public consciousness?
GS: The starting point in Germany would be the increasing tendency to restrict freedom of opinion. The media lawyer Ralf Höcker has written an excellent article on this problem in the Berliner Zeitung.
To combat the restriction of freedom of expression, the initiatives of politicians who stand up for women's rights and gender-critical women are needed to counter the woke bubble (see https://www.laz-reloaded.de/aktuelles/).
Note: The articles in Cicero (Faika El-Nagashi, 19 April), NZZ (Niklaus Nuspliger, London, 16 April), and WELT (17 April) are informative.
WIEF: The SBGG is often referred to by critics like you as a 'men's rights law' because it endangers women's safe spaces. Could the Supreme Court's ruling help to abolish the SBGG, and if so, in what way?
GS: Unfortunately, the ruling of the British Supreme Court can hardly help on a legal level, as the legal bases in the two countries are completely different. The UK has no self-ID law, but a transgender ideology that has covered all areas of society like mildew since 2010. It will take some effort and time to change all this in favor of women/lesbians again. In Germany, transgender ideology is not yet as widespread as in the UK, but we do have a self-ID law. The Federal Constitutional Court's departure from the binary concept of gender enshrined in Article 3 (2) of the Basic Law in favor of self-determined sex (4) does not bode well for any constitutional complaints by women/lesbians.
That leaves only the political and social campaign level in Germany to turn the tide on the SBGG.
WIEF: The AfD parliamentary group's spokesperson on family policy, Martin Reichardt, reacted immediately to the Supreme Court ruling and called for the abolition of the SBGG. The CDU/CSU, on the other hand, have not commented at all on this court ruling, although they had also expressed their desire to abolish the SBGG during the election campaign. All that remains in the coalition agreement is the plan to evaluate the law by 2026. How do you assess the stance of the two parties on these issues and how do you see the chances of a decision being reached?
GS: The abolition of the SBGG announced in the CDU/CSU election manifesto will not be enforceable in the black-red coalition. The CSU/CSU women are strong (e.g. Dorothee Bär, Susanne Hierl, Sylvia Breher), but not strong enough. Once the Federal Government has been constituted, gendercritical women/lesbians should contact the new family/education minister as soon as possible in order to increase the chances of a critical evaluation based on the criteria set out in the coalition agreement (5) :
- effects on children and young people,
- the deadlines for changing the sex entry and
- the effective protection of women on the reform of the SBGG (6).
WIEF: With the ruling in mind, what strategies would you suggest for seeking the abolition of the Self-Determination Act in Germany? Are you thinking of legal, political or social approaches - and how do you assess the influence of the many grassroots organizations? Do you also believe that a women's ministry under Silvia Breher will help to reassert women's rights in Germany?
GS: I am thinking primarily of political and social approaches. Grassroots women's/lesbian organizations are good, but they need to take the fight of gender-critical UK women as a model and work better together. Above all, there must be no pause for breath in the fight against the SBGG. I am not in a position to judge whether a family/education ministry under Karin Prien can help women's rights in Germany to be asserted again. The EMMA article paints a fairly positive picture ("We should focus more on the universality of human rights and stop splitting up minorities and minority rights."). As far as I know, Karin Prien comes from the "liberal camp" of the CDU in Schleswig-Holstein. Whether this gives cause for hope, I cannot judge at the moment.
WIEF: Finally, what hope does the Supreme Court's ruling give you for the future of women's rights, and what would be your most important advice to women and girls in Germany who want to fight back against the effects of the SBGG?
GS: My most important advice to women and girls in Germany who want to defend themselves against the effects of the SBGG: Take joint action and stick together! There needs to be a constant flow of information, perhaps by establishing a newsletter, as well as continuous public criticism of the negative effects of the SBGG on women/lesbians and girls.
Berlin, May 1st, 2025
Gunda Schumann
LAZ reloaded e.V.
Gunda Schumann
LAZ reloaded e.V.
(1) "25. the central issue in this appeal is whether references in the EA 2010 [Equality Act] to a person's 'sex' and to 'woman' and 'female' are to be interpreted in the light of section 9 of the GRA [Gender Recognition Act] 2004 as including persons who have an acquired gender by virtue of holding a GRC [Gender Recognition Certificate].", https://supremecourt.uk/uploads/uksc_2024_0042_judgment_aea6c48cee.pdf
(2) For the implementation of the ruling in practice, see Maya Forstater in the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTG9n4icmw&pp=ygUdVHJpZ2dlcm5vbWV0cnkgbWF5YSBmb3Jzd GF0ZXI%3D
(3) See also Equality and Human Rights Commission, Interim Update 25 April, 2025 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supremecourt-judgment
(4) Cf. the expert opinion by the lawyers Jacob and Dr. Märker on the draft SBGG, https://storage.e.jimdo.com/file/5e295889-f93a-4280-94d0-29e564498f48/Gutachten_SBBG.pdf; cf. also Third Option, BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of October 10, 2017 - 1 BvR 2019/16, BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of December 6, 2005 - 1 BvL 3/03 -, para. 1-73, Prohibition of marriage following a change of first name: "lesbian" trans woman', http://www.bverfg.de/e/ls20051206_1bvl000303.html , BVerfG 2005, para. 39; BVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 11.01.2011 - 1 BvR 3295/07-, para. 1-82 -, - Registered civil partnership only with surgical intervention: "lesbian" 'trans woman', http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20110111_1bvr329507.html , BVerfG 2011, para. 76)
(5) https://www.koalitionsvertrag2025.de/sites/www.koalitionsvertrag2025.de/files/koav_2025.pdf (section 4.1.).
(6) The conservative ÖVP in Austria has not changed the so-called Federal Equality Act 2023, according to which the "perceived sex" is decisive; the current government program does not mention anything about this (see the Cicero article above)
(2) For the implementation of the ruling in practice, see Maya Forstater in the interview https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqTG9n4icmw&pp=ygUdVHJpZ2dlcm5vbWV0cnkgbWF5YSBmb3Jzd GF0ZXI%3D
(3) See also Equality and Human Rights Commission, Interim Update 25 April, 2025 https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/interim-update-practical-implications-uk-supremecourt-judgment
(4) Cf. the expert opinion by the lawyers Jacob and Dr. Märker on the draft SBGG, https://storage.e.jimdo.com/file/5e295889-f93a-4280-94d0-29e564498f48/Gutachten_SBBG.pdf; cf. also Third Option, BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of October 10, 2017 - 1 BvR 2019/16, BVerfG, decision of the First Senate of December 6, 2005 - 1 BvL 3/03 -, para. 1-73, Prohibition of marriage following a change of first name: "lesbian" trans woman', http://www.bverfg.de/e/ls20051206_1bvl000303.html , BVerfG 2005, para. 39; BVerfG, Order of the First Senate of 11.01.2011 - 1 BvR 3295/07-, para. 1-82 -, - Registered civil partnership only with surgical intervention: "lesbian" 'trans woman', http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs20110111_1bvr329507.html , BVerfG 2011, para. 76)
(5) https://www.koalitionsvertrag2025.de/sites/www.koalitionsvertrag2025.de/files/koav_2025.pdf (section 4.1.).
(6) The conservative ÖVP in Austria has not changed the so-called Federal Equality Act 2023, according to which the "perceived sex" is decisive; the current government program does not mention anything about this (see the Cicero article above)
May 2025
Pride: What Went Wrong? Can We Fix It?
RESOLVED, that lesbians have the right to be
recognized and referred to as a discrete and
independent category; that is, as lesbians rather
than ‘LGBT’ or ‘LGB’ or ‘gay’ as a catchall;
The Lesbian Bill of Right
“Gay Pride” is what it was called first, although it included lesbians. The first gay pride march in 1970 was meant to commemorate the first anniversary of Stonewall. It was meant to be a march rather than a parade. Marchers didn’t know what to expect. Maybe there would be violence. Despite Stonewall’s success in gaining the sympathies of New Yorkers and the attention of the world, there had been a long history, and a long habit, of lesbians and gay men being physically attacked whenever they went out in public looking shamelessly (or “flamboyantly”) lesbian or gay.
Participating in this first march felt courageous. Marchers of both sexes, in pairs or in small groups of friends, and dressed for the most part like other young New Yorkers were dressed in June, assembled in the narrow streets of Greenwich Village near the Stonewall Inn. It wasn’t frightening there, we were assembling in the friendliest possible neighborhood anywhere. Village residents smiled and waved and cheered us. Some spontaneously joined us. What was worrying was how our march might be received once we left the Village and marched uptown toward Central Park. ¹
As it turned out, the effects of the 1969 Stonewall rebellion on city culture had been significant. In this commemorative march a year later there was no physical violence that I recall. There was an occasional mocking or angry verbal outburst. One woman said to the group of lesbians I was walking with, “You’ll never be a man, Honey, you’re not fooling anybody.” A lesbian near me immediately answered “Why would I want to be a man? Men are gross! My lover only loves women! Does anybody here want to be a man?” We all laughed with delight in our solidarity, high on our own ability to retort, finally, to a disrespectful stranger on the street in the middle of the day in midtown Manhattan. Our would-be tormentor stopped talking and stepped back into the crowd. It felt as though lesbians had just stepped out of the shadows, collectively and irrevocably. I understood at that moment that not only was our cause just, but that our momentum was irresistible and that our moment was now.
The organizers of the march, including some lesbians, took stock after that first march. Over the next several years there were changes. The most significant change for lesbians was that lesbian groups got the option to march separate from men, each lesbian group with its own banner. And some lesbians demanded to march at the front, in order not to be rendered invisible by the greater number of men and by the other cultural forces that tend to make lesbians invisible.
It wasn’t just that the men were more numerous and taller. They were also louder, and some were more nearly naked. While in the lesbian groups there were a lot of jeans and men’s blue work shirts worn by serious women handing out political leaflets, it seemed that gay men had begun to get flashier, or to take their flashiness into the streets. Gay men’s bars became sponsors. They provided floats, amplified dance music, and men in bikinis dancing on the floats. Sometimes there would be a drag queen on a float instead of wiggling young men on a float. Sometimes instead of a bikini there would be leather chaps with suggestively placed zippers. In contrast, lesbians tended to look low key and androgynous, and tended to be mistaken for men. It was apparent that lesbians needed to march together if they were to have any chance of being recognized as lesbians. Some lesbians organized the separate and more politically serious Dyke March, held annually the day before the New York City Gay (and lesbian) Pride March. It never drew as big a crowd as the Pride March.
By the mid 1980s, the march had become not only a corporate event, but a government event. The mayor and other politicos would lead the march, followed by a row of NYPD on police motorcycles, followed by lesbians on motorcycles (aka “dykes on bikes” who insisted on riding in front of the gay men on motorcycles to avoid erasure by assumption of maleness; shout out to Sirens Women’s Motorcycle Club NYC for their effective advocacy), followed by floats carrying drag queens and leather men, Stonewall heroes and survivors, a pair of Grand Marshalls, marching bands, the Gay Men’s Chorus, a lesbian softball league, parents of lesbians and gay men, and unaffiliated marchers. And the route changed to begin on Fifth Avenue and march “home” downtown to the Village. Once your parade makes it to Fifth Avenue, you know you’ve arrived.
But the tension between gay men and lesbians, present from the beginning, never disappeared; if anything, it increased. Here are some differences between the gay male agenda and the lesbian feminist agenda that became clearer over the course of the 1970s:
Participating in this first march felt courageous. Marchers of both sexes, in pairs or in small groups of friends, and dressed for the most part like other young New Yorkers were dressed in June, assembled in the narrow streets of Greenwich Village near the Stonewall Inn. It wasn’t frightening there, we were assembling in the friendliest possible neighborhood anywhere. Village residents smiled and waved and cheered us. Some spontaneously joined us. What was worrying was how our march might be received once we left the Village and marched uptown toward Central Park. ¹
As it turned out, the effects of the 1969 Stonewall rebellion on city culture had been significant. In this commemorative march a year later there was no physical violence that I recall. There was an occasional mocking or angry verbal outburst. One woman said to the group of lesbians I was walking with, “You’ll never be a man, Honey, you’re not fooling anybody.” A lesbian near me immediately answered “Why would I want to be a man? Men are gross! My lover only loves women! Does anybody here want to be a man?” We all laughed with delight in our solidarity, high on our own ability to retort, finally, to a disrespectful stranger on the street in the middle of the day in midtown Manhattan. Our would-be tormentor stopped talking and stepped back into the crowd. It felt as though lesbians had just stepped out of the shadows, collectively and irrevocably. I understood at that moment that not only was our cause just, but that our momentum was irresistible and that our moment was now.
The organizers of the march, including some lesbians, took stock after that first march. Over the next several years there were changes. The most significant change for lesbians was that lesbian groups got the option to march separate from men, each lesbian group with its own banner. And some lesbians demanded to march at the front, in order not to be rendered invisible by the greater number of men and by the other cultural forces that tend to make lesbians invisible.
It wasn’t just that the men were more numerous and taller. They were also louder, and some were more nearly naked. While in the lesbian groups there were a lot of jeans and men’s blue work shirts worn by serious women handing out political leaflets, it seemed that gay men had begun to get flashier, or to take their flashiness into the streets. Gay men’s bars became sponsors. They provided floats, amplified dance music, and men in bikinis dancing on the floats. Sometimes there would be a drag queen on a float instead of wiggling young men on a float. Sometimes instead of a bikini there would be leather chaps with suggestively placed zippers. In contrast, lesbians tended to look low key and androgynous, and tended to be mistaken for men. It was apparent that lesbians needed to march together if they were to have any chance of being recognized as lesbians. Some lesbians organized the separate and more politically serious Dyke March, held annually the day before the New York City Gay (and lesbian) Pride March. It never drew as big a crowd as the Pride March.
By the mid 1980s, the march had become not only a corporate event, but a government event. The mayor and other politicos would lead the march, followed by a row of NYPD on police motorcycles, followed by lesbians on motorcycles (aka “dykes on bikes” who insisted on riding in front of the gay men on motorcycles to avoid erasure by assumption of maleness; shout out to Sirens Women’s Motorcycle Club NYC for their effective advocacy), followed by floats carrying drag queens and leather men, Stonewall heroes and survivors, a pair of Grand Marshalls, marching bands, the Gay Men’s Chorus, a lesbian softball league, parents of lesbians and gay men, and unaffiliated marchers. And the route changed to begin on Fifth Avenue and march “home” downtown to the Village. Once your parade makes it to Fifth Avenue, you know you’ve arrived.
But the tension between gay men and lesbians, present from the beginning, never disappeared; if anything, it increased. Here are some differences between the gay male agenda and the lesbian feminist agenda that became clearer over the course of the 1970s:
- Gay men were aiming to become fully enfranchised patriarchs, while lesbian women’s liberationists were aiming to destroy patriarchy. This meant that gay men wanted to have homosexuality decriminalized, and they wanted the right to marry and be custodial parents. And they also wanted the right to engage in sexual excesses in public, like straight men. Decriminalization was the only aim shared by radical feminist lesbians.
- Gay men were emotionally attached to drag; it was, and remains, central to gay male culture. Lesbian women’s liberationists understood drag to be a mockery of the femininity that women were encouraged or forced to perform.
- Until the AIDS crisis became apparent around 1980, gay male culture promoted many sexual encounters with many strangers, including orgies – in most gay bars and clubs, on the Christopher Street pier, on Christopher Street itself. This could be seen as an extension of the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s. It became part of lesbian culture too, but not nearly to the same degree, possibly in part because there weren’t enough lesbians or enough lesbian venues in the City, reflecting lesbians’ diminished access to money, travel, and ability to support a plethora of commercial lesbian-only venues.
- Gay men promoted sadomasochism and the associated leather fetishism. Lesbians became bitterly divided on this issue, leading to what has been termed the “sex wars,” which eventually exhausted the Women’s Liberation Movement. It seemed to radical feminist lesbians that some lesbians were imitating gay male culture, including its sneering denigration of lesbians, all women, and “vanilla” sexual practices grounded in affection and intimacy.
- The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus has written previously about how patriarchy treats lesbians – either by pretending that lesbians don’t exist or, if erasure fails, by punishing lesbians. One erasure technique is conflating lesbians with gay men. Lesbians are widely assumed to be a shorter, less colorful, less affluent, less amusing subset of the “gay” culture that we are assumed and encouraged to share.
By the second decade of the 21st century, the uncomfortable alliance between lesbians and gay men was made untenable by the forced marriage of LGB with TQIA+. Lesbian and gay pride marches have become rebranded as “Pride” celebrations of male sexual aggression as well as male fetishes. The lesbian motorcycle clubs have been forced to admit men who claim to be lesbians. Lesbians have been reframed as TERFs and driven out of Pride marches everywhere. As a result, public good will has been lost. Not only is Pride everywhere losing the near universal support of corporations and politicians; it is losing the support of private citizens who don’t want their kids or themselves exposed to kinky sex in public.
Having been kicked off the rainbow, lesbians are probably intended to cooperate in our own erasure (again). But maybe we should never have hopped onto the rainbow. It was never a natural coalition. It gave lesbians nominal decriminalization as homosexuals, only to quickly recriminalize us as TERFs. It gave us the dubious right to participate in the patriarchal institution of marriage, with the state as a third partner in our love relationships. It gave us the right to be custodial mothers, provided we’re open to our kids being either traditionally gendered or “transed.”
Lesbians can’t benefit from the rights that gay men have won to be full brothers in patriarchy. This is because patriarchy requires the unpaid labor of women, including all lesbians. Patriarchy depends on women as the personal servant class to the master class of men, including gay men. Lesbians need a Women’s Liberation Movement and Lesbian Pride. After all, the Stonewall rebellion was started by a lesbian; Stonewall is lesbians’ to commemorate. We are not gay men, we are not a subset of gay men, we are not bisexual, and we are not “Queer.” There is an ongoing patriarchal push to subsume lesbians into some other group, and we think it’s time for lesbians to separate, cultivate our lesbian communities, grow the number of lesbians, and push back. To be clear, lesbians are not a monolith, and we need to be careful to include lesbians of all races and ethnicities, of all abilities, of all economic classes, of all ages, and so forth. But if we make alliances with non lesbians, they should be primarily with women’s liberationists, and not with men of any sexual orientation, because the problem is patriarchy; it’s never the solution.
Fortunately, we still have the labrys flag, and we still have the only analysis of universal male domination that makes any sense. Happy Lesbian Pride!
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
Lauren Levey, coordinator
KC Bianco
Mary Ellen Kelleher
Katherine Kinney
|
March 2025
LAZ Reloaded report on the emergence of the German 'Violence Assistance Act' |
Women are victims of violence because of their sex. In Germany, too, radical feminists have always stood up for abused women and founded the first women's shelters.
The old demand for a legal right to assistance for such women and state financial support for the offers of assistance has now finally been implemented. However, the governing parties – Social Democrats and Greens, influenced by transactivism – wanted to expand the group of eligible victims of violence to include people with a gender identity that differs from their biological sex. This terminology, originally included in the legal text, would have turned all efforts upside down and re-traumatized affected women because they would be forced to share their women's shelters and therapy groups with men.
Many feminists campaigned for an amendment to the Bill. A women's shelter activist, nominated by the conservative CDU, reported as an expert to the Family Committee, and LAZ reloaded issued a statement that was published on that Committee's website. Representatives of the municipalities rejected extending the law to trans people for financial reasons, and female politicians from the conservative parties (CDU and CSU, called the Union) negotiated very well and hard in our favor. This unusual alliance has ensured that the wording of the law was tailored exclusively to biological women and ultimately found approval by the first and second chamber of the legislature, Bundestag and Bundesrat.
This success shows that it is possible to enforce women's rights. But only if we continue to advocate for it relentlessly and also win allies for our concerns in politics.
And: Only the repeal of the so-called Self-Determination Act (SBGG) will eliminate the legal gray area around the term “woman” created by transactivism. The Union, which will most likely provide the next Chancellor, had announced the re-abolition of SBGG in its election program earlier. LAZ reloaded has therefore also written an Open Letter to the leading politicians of this party to remind them of their election promise and to urge them not to sacrifice this important project in the upcoming coalition negotiations. We'll keep at it!
The old demand for a legal right to assistance for such women and state financial support for the offers of assistance has now finally been implemented. However, the governing parties – Social Democrats and Greens, influenced by transactivism – wanted to expand the group of eligible victims of violence to include people with a gender identity that differs from their biological sex. This terminology, originally included in the legal text, would have turned all efforts upside down and re-traumatized affected women because they would be forced to share their women's shelters and therapy groups with men.
Many feminists campaigned for an amendment to the Bill. A women's shelter activist, nominated by the conservative CDU, reported as an expert to the Family Committee, and LAZ reloaded issued a statement that was published on that Committee's website. Representatives of the municipalities rejected extending the law to trans people for financial reasons, and female politicians from the conservative parties (CDU and CSU, called the Union) negotiated very well and hard in our favor. This unusual alliance has ensured that the wording of the law was tailored exclusively to biological women and ultimately found approval by the first and second chamber of the legislature, Bundestag and Bundesrat.
This success shows that it is possible to enforce women's rights. But only if we continue to advocate for it relentlessly and also win allies for our concerns in politics.
And: Only the repeal of the so-called Self-Determination Act (SBGG) will eliminate the legal gray area around the term “woman” created by transactivism. The Union, which will most likely provide the next Chancellor, had announced the re-abolition of SBGG in its election program earlier. LAZ reloaded has therefore also written an Open Letter to the leading politicians of this party to remind them of their election promise and to urge them not to sacrifice this important project in the upcoming coalition negotiations. We'll keep at it!
|
Statement of the Lesbian Action Center (LAZ)1 reloaded e.V. on the Bill of SPD and Green parliamentary groups |
Re: Draft Law for a Reliable Support System in Cases of Gender-Specific and Domestic Violence
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
As an association that advocates the sustainability of the rights gained for women in general
and lesbians in particular, we must take a stand on the Bill, as it is incompatible with the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of all women.
A law to protect female victims of violence worthy of the name is long overdue. However, the
draft Bill now presented by SPD and the Green parliamentary groups is unfortunately not
suitable for ensuring the necessary protection.
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
As an association that advocates the sustainability of the rights gained for women in general
and lesbians in particular, we must take a stand on the Bill, as it is incompatible with the
constitutionally guaranteed rights of all women.
A law to protect female victims of violence worthy of the name is long overdue. However, the
draft Bill now presented by SPD and the Green parliamentary groups is unfortunately not
suitable for ensuring the necessary protection.
|
February 2025 WDI USA Lesbian Caucus Statement to CEDAW on Gender stereotypes |
Women’s Declaration International (WDI) is a global, nonpartisan group of volunteer women dedicated to protecting women’s sex-based rights. Women’s Declaration International USA, Inc. (WDI USA) is its U.S. chapter. WDI promotes the Declaration on Women’s Sex-Based Rights (the Declaration), which has more than 39,000 signatures globally. The undersigned are the members of WDI USA’s Lesbian Caucus.
As radical feminists who are lesbians, we aim to abolish all gender, meaning sex stereotypes. Not just “trans” gender, but the entire spectrum of masculine-feminine, whether performed by a male or a female. Abolition of all gender is our aim because we understand that it is a system that functions to maintain the sex class of males as dominant and the sex class of females as subordinate. We aim to abolish that sex-class system of dom-sub.
In this article published by WDI USA, authors Levey, Lopez, and Nowlin wrote:
As radical feminists who are lesbians, we aim to abolish all gender, meaning sex stereotypes. Not just “trans” gender, but the entire spectrum of masculine-feminine, whether performed by a male or a female. Abolition of all gender is our aim because we understand that it is a system that functions to maintain the sex class of males as dominant and the sex class of females as subordinate. We aim to abolish that sex-class system of dom-sub.
In this article published by WDI USA, authors Levey, Lopez, and Nowlin wrote:
|
When gender is a pervasive system that each woman has internalized from the culture (as it surely must be to some degree), free choice in matters regarding our own presentations and behaviors is an illusion, because what feels like a choice is so heavily influenced by our internalized system of gender. For this reason, radical feminists don’t primarily examine personal presentations and behaviors as to whether or not they were freely chosen; they ask whether particular presentations and behaviors support the liberation of the sex class composed of women and girls.
|
We encourage you to read that article in its entirety, as it delves into the harms of gender stereotypes relating to Black women and to detransitioned and desisted women, in addition to lesbians. In this statement by the WDI USA Lesbian Caucus we will focus on the harms of gender stereotypes relating to women as a class and lesbians in particular.
Sheila Jeffreys, one of the directors of WDI, has written and spoken extensively about harmful beauty practices, including in her book “Beauty and Misogyny” (2005). Jeffreys describes how specific beauty practices – which exaggerate and enforce biological differences between the sexes – are typically framed either as natural or as freely chosen; and in any case as being without generalizable, culture-wide significance. She describes how these practices harm women individually and collectively, and for the purpose of enforcing the subordination of the female sex class. They harm women’s health, diminish women’s strength and mobility, and undermine women’s dignity and ability to thrive as full humans entitled to full civil rights. A partial list of such beauty practices includes “transgender medicine,” labiaplasty, anal bleaching, lip fillers, breast augmentation and mastectomy, body piercings; and clothing fashions such as shoes with high narrow heels and pointy toes, tight short skirts, long decorated fingernails, and plunging necklines.
Jeffreys explains that such practices are not freely chosen, which can be seen in the denial of privileges in public life to women who fail to adopt them. They are a condition of employment for most women in most high-paying jobs. These conditions support the domination-subordination core of gender with visible badges of subordination for women. While men in business attire have both feet planted, with bodies covered in a dignified manner, his female counterparts teeter precariously on high heels, showing cleavage and other bare skin, unable to fully use their long-nailed fingers, and continuously having to move the required long hair out of their eyes either by touching it or tossing their heads. To gain precarious and conditional male acceptance of a woman’s participation in public life, a woman is required to divert part of her attention away from her work and instead toward her self-conscious awareness of her impractical appearance and posture. The contrast in professional attire required for each sex, like the veil in other cultures, makes the female’s subordinate status visible at a glance, so that she can be treated accordingly.
Explicitly abolishing gender in law and policy would be a statement that femininity has nothing to do with being female; and that women have a right to live consistently as free, dignified, full human beings having full agency.
As to lesbians in particular, authors Levey, Lopez, and Nowlin wrote the following:
What would the abolition of gender look like for lesbians?
- The stigma of “lesbian” would end. The Lesbian Bill Of Rights defines a lesbian as “a female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” By definition, lesbians are taboo in patriarchy because (a) they deny sexual access to all men, and (b) they demonstrate that women have sexual agency – that sexual desire and satisfaction occur for them without male involvement. Both taboos exist as a consequence of gender, i.e., the patriarchal requirement of universal male supremacy. There must be no viable exceptions, or else the rationale for patriarchy disappears. Without the dom-sub component of gender, the stigma of being a lesbian disappears along with patriarchy itself.
- The institution of state-sanctioned marriage would disappear. Its purpose has always been for the state to regulate and be a party to long-term sexual relationships in order to support patriarchy: to manage the ownership and inheritance of property accordingly, and to encourage heterosexual married couples to have lots of “legitimate” children, especially sons/heirs. Its marketing strategies involve romance, religion, soul-mate ideology, and tax breaks and immigration privileges. Some of these “perks” have no value to the collective interests of women and girls as a sex class or lesbians in particular; others should not be tied to marital status. There are ways of organizing communities other than isolating each woman, away from her birth family, in a household headed by a man.
- Lesbian motherhood would no longer be valorized. Once women, including lesbians, are understood to be fully human, with equal access to productive public life, lesbians (like other women) would not be pressured to bear even one child. And the choice to become a mother would not be made or seen in the context of femininity (or “women’s nature”). Furthermore, lesbian motherhood would not be lamented as “how sad the poor baby has no daddy.” Being raised by a community of lesbians could arguably be quite a rich upbringing for any child, especially in a culture where gender has been eliminated.
- The lesbian gender identities of butch and femme, discussed by Sheila Jeffreys and Lauren Levey in February of 2024, would disappear. “Butch” means masculine, and “femme” means feminine. Some lesbians make an attempt to reframe butch as simply “not feminine” or as “nonconforming to gender expectations for women,” but in common usage “butch” maps the swagger of male entitlement and domination. Although some lesbians feel strongly that lesbian genders are innate and immutable, and that butch or femme, for instance, is who they are, there is no scientific evidence to support biological innateness. Without the power and romance and mystique of masculinity and femininity, butch and femme would no longer have a cultural foundation. So we predict that lesbians would not only be functioning workers in the public sphere, as most are now; but would also appear as fully functioning workers.
- Absent social stigma, there would be a lot more women living openly and visibly as lesbians, for two reasons: (a) Lesbians would no longer be excluded from public life generally, and (b) lesbian communities would be welcoming to new lesbians, to women who are wondering if they might be lesbians, and to women who wished to become lesbians. And many of those open and visible lesbians would undoubtedly be taking the lead in creating new and more just structures of social organization post-patriarchy.
The WDI USA Lesbian Caucus
Lauren Levey, coordinator
Katherine Kinney
Mary Ellen Kelleher
KC Bianco
Lauren Levey, coordinator
Katherine Kinney
Mary Ellen Kelleher
KC Bianco
***
The aim of the General Recommendation (see concept note) will be to provide guidance to States parties to the Convention on the measures they should adopt to ensure full compliance with their obligations under the Convention to combat gender stereotypes.
The aim of the General Recommendation (see concept note) will be to provide guidance to States parties to the Convention on the measures they should adopt to ensure full compliance with their obligations under the Convention to combat gender stereotypes.
|
19 January 2025
“Consultation on safety measures for the use of puberty blockers in young people with gender-related health needs” Submission by Lesbian Resistance New Zealand to the New Zealand Ministry of Health |
Lesbian Resistance New Zealand represents lesbians, who are disproportionately affected by gender-related practices and policies. We promote public awareness of the unique vulnerabilities of young lesbians and the parallels between medical transition and historical conversion therapy practices. We support non-invasive approaches so young lesbians can grow into adulthood with their health, fertility, and sexual identity intact - free from unnecessary medical harm.
Lesbians are particularly vulnerable:
Medical “transition” is modern conversion therapy
Until recently, lesbians were pathologised and classified as mentally ill or disturbed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) [1] . Churches and other communities have tried to cure this perceived illness by way of conversion therapy. We have moved on from this variant of homophobia, yet the modern-day version of it is an assumed “trans identity”, which has conversion therapy built into the very concept: Instead of accepting that a certain percentage of young people turn out to be homosexual, we again assume that something is wrong with them.
Instead of addressing societal pressures and internalised homophobia, the suggestion of puberty blockers encourages young lesbians to pursue irreversible changes to their bodies to conform to stereotypical gender norms. This effectively erases lesbian identity by promoting the idea that young girls who exhibit gender nonconformity must actually be boys.
Being “born in the wrong body” or suffering from “gender dysphoria” are unverifiable concepts resembling outdated notions, such as medieval beliefs about “miasmas” causing diseases like cholera or pestilence. If “gender dysphoria” was indeed an illness, it would be a psychological disorder needing psychological treatment.
All people are born with their own body, which is always the right one and, indeed, the one and only body they will ever have. Suggesting to children that their bodies are fundamentally flawed is harmful and unfounded.
The majority of children who present with "gender dysphoria" also have underlying psychological or social issues, such as autism, depression, anxiety, or experiences of (sexual) trauma, which are often overlooked in favour of medical interventions.
Lesbians are particularly vulnerable:
Medical “transition” is modern conversion therapy
Until recently, lesbians were pathologised and classified as mentally ill or disturbed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) [1] . Churches and other communities have tried to cure this perceived illness by way of conversion therapy. We have moved on from this variant of homophobia, yet the modern-day version of it is an assumed “trans identity”, which has conversion therapy built into the very concept: Instead of accepting that a certain percentage of young people turn out to be homosexual, we again assume that something is wrong with them.
Instead of addressing societal pressures and internalised homophobia, the suggestion of puberty blockers encourages young lesbians to pursue irreversible changes to their bodies to conform to stereotypical gender norms. This effectively erases lesbian identity by promoting the idea that young girls who exhibit gender nonconformity must actually be boys.
Being “born in the wrong body” or suffering from “gender dysphoria” are unverifiable concepts resembling outdated notions, such as medieval beliefs about “miasmas” causing diseases like cholera or pestilence. If “gender dysphoria” was indeed an illness, it would be a psychological disorder needing psychological treatment.
All people are born with their own body, which is always the right one and, indeed, the one and only body they will ever have. Suggesting to children that their bodies are fundamentally flawed is harmful and unfounded.
The majority of children who present with "gender dysphoria" also have underlying psychological or social issues, such as autism, depression, anxiety, or experiences of (sexual) trauma, which are often overlooked in favour of medical interventions.
|
10 December 2024
WDI USA Lesbian Caucus: The 4B Movement Arrives in the US: Effects on lesbians and the Women’s Liberation Movement |
RESOLVED, that lesbians have the right to create and maintain lesbian-only spaces;
The Lesbian Bill Of Rights
The heaviness of the air that has settled over the conversation in mainstream women’s and feminist spaces since the election of Donald Trump is palpable. To be sure, there are good reasons for that: It is essentially a pipe dream that the destruction of women’s reproductive care will see any improvement at the federal level under the Trump administration, and that destruction will likely get worse. This administration may also move to restrict no-fault divorce, which helps women escape from marriages to abusive men.
But we think that prospects are sunnier for lesbians than the mainstream media would have us believe – not so much because those media outlets don’t see it, but because they do, and would prefer to keep the picture dark.
The election has resulted in a new wave of discussion about female separatism, unlike anything we have seen in this century in the West. Presently it is flying under the name 4B, which made the jump across the Pacific after the election. A brainchild of South Korean feminists, adherents of the 4B movement vow not to engage in dating, sex, or marriage with men; or having children (in Korean, the words for saying no to these things all start with a “b” sound). Some additional practices followed by some adherents include avoiding use of beauty products and sexist media, and supporting other women in every possible arena.
The Lesbian Bill Of Rights
The heaviness of the air that has settled over the conversation in mainstream women’s and feminist spaces since the election of Donald Trump is palpable. To be sure, there are good reasons for that: It is essentially a pipe dream that the destruction of women’s reproductive care will see any improvement at the federal level under the Trump administration, and that destruction will likely get worse. This administration may also move to restrict no-fault divorce, which helps women escape from marriages to abusive men.
But we think that prospects are sunnier for lesbians than the mainstream media would have us believe – not so much because those media outlets don’t see it, but because they do, and would prefer to keep the picture dark.
The election has resulted in a new wave of discussion about female separatism, unlike anything we have seen in this century in the West. Presently it is flying under the name 4B, which made the jump across the Pacific after the election. A brainchild of South Korean feminists, adherents of the 4B movement vow not to engage in dating, sex, or marriage with men; or having children (in Korean, the words for saying no to these things all start with a “b” sound). Some additional practices followed by some adherents include avoiding use of beauty products and sexist media, and supporting other women in every possible arena.
|
Arci Lesbica Associazione Nazionale:
NOI, LE LESBICHE Preferenza femminile e critica al transfemminismo A book about the challenge of "transfeminism" (free download in the original Italian language) |
Le lesbiche si trovano oggi a fronteggiare la sfida del transfemminismo secondo cui una persona di sesso maschile può essere lesbica, se si dichiara tale, poiché dire equivarrebbe ad essere. Questa teoria apparentemente trasgressiva cerca di farsi largo nei movimenti giovanili, ma è una appropriazione culturale e materiale delle donne. Infatti nega le esperienze strettamente femminili come la maternità, il lesbismo e il movimento delle donne, mentre approva che le donne vengano usate nella surrogazione di maternità e nel sistema prostituente.
Le voci che, sempre più numerose, si levano a livello locale e internazionale contro queste annessioni tengono il punto sull’indisponibilità del corpo femminile nonostante i violenti attacchi dei transattivisti.
Questo libro è una di quelle voci.
Fuori dalla confusione dei social, racconta cosa sta succedendo nel dibattito italiano sui diritti. Indica cosa vogliono le lesbiche e come si smaschera l’attacco misogino condotto tramite una colorata idea di inclusività che svilisce e fagocita le donne e le differenze. Chi sono le lesbiche oggi? Sono donne che hanno una storia su cui contare e che possono scommettere la felicità con altre donne.
Le voci che, sempre più numerose, si levano a livello locale e internazionale contro queste annessioni tengono il punto sull’indisponibilità del corpo femminile nonostante i violenti attacchi dei transattivisti.
Questo libro è una di quelle voci.
Fuori dalla confusione dei social, racconta cosa sta succedendo nel dibattito italiano sui diritti. Indica cosa vogliono le lesbiche e come si smaschera l’attacco misogino condotto tramite una colorata idea di inclusività che svilisce e fagocita le donne e le differenze. Chi sono le lesbiche oggi? Sono donne che hanno una storia su cui contare e che possono scommettere la felicità con altre donne.