Transcript of the Reem Consultation published on WDI Feminist Question Time
I was here on FQT three weeks ago talking about the statements submitted by the WDI USA Lesbians Caucus and by Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (or LBORI) to the UN CEDAW Committee. The topic of both statements was: the harms of gender stereotypes and how to combat them.
I think it was specifically because of the CEDAW submission by LBORI that I was invited to a three-hour, online, live group consultation with Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, held March 19, 2025. I was completely surprised by the invitation. I’ve never done anything like that. And of course I was delighted to get the chance to speak directly to Reem Alsalem about lesbians.
The session was recorded, and so was the chat; but those recordings won’t be made public, in order to allow the consultants to feel they could speak freely. So for that reason, I don’t feel free to tell you the substance of what any particular individual said. However, I will tell you some of the interesting themes that were raised.
The Special Rapporteur provided four sub topics for the consultants to be prepared to discuss, all in relation to the main topic “Forms of sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues”. The four sub topics were:
I didn’t prepare to speak on new technologies because I figured – correctly, as it turned out – that other people would be much better informed about things like AI, for instance. I did prepare to speak about language, and sexual orientation, and to make recommendations – all with respect to lesbians.
It was interesting to see who showed up for the zoom call. There were about 40 consultants present. I think all but one was a woman. Overall they seemed generally critical of transgenderism in varying degrees, although they weren’t all radical feminists (but some were). There was at least one proponent of “true trans” (that is, the notion that some people truly were born in the wrong-sexed body); and there was a small amount of frankly personal criticism of the Special Rapporteur for her continuing stance against transgenderism. I was happy to see that there were some familiar faces from WDI present also, including Dianne Post; and I’m looking forward to hearing Diane’s report on the consultation. And there was also some private networking happening in the chat, at least for me; so that was a bonus.
The first hour was spent on language and sexual orientation. Each remaining topic (i.e., new technologies and recommendations) was allotted about an hour. Combining language and sexual orientation made sense because, as it turned out, there were only two consultants who represented lesbian organizations; and we both got the chance to speak during the first hour.
It was generally acknowledged that sexual orientation is currently under-discussed; and that when it is discussed, it’s linked with “gender identity,” which makes the discussion useless. Furthermore, current discussions of lesbians often omit those lesbians who don’t identify as lesbians, but instead identify as men. It was also mentioned that more research needs to be done specifically on lesbians; domestic violence in lesbian relationships was one suggested topic.
There was some general agreement that conventional meanings of words like “woman” and “lesbian” should be used universally; and that, on one hand, neither “woman” nor “lesbian” should include men; and on the other hand, neither the word woman nor the word lesbian should be banned, as was suggested in a list put together by the Trump administration of words not to be used by US federal agencies, including “woman.” (But “girl” is apparently okay.)
It was a multinational group of consultants; so one important point that was made about language was that many languages don’t signify gender in the same ways as English or Romance languages do (in having differentiated pronouns, for instance). And some languages don’t have separate words for “sex” and “gender.” I know I’ve seen some bad translations where “sex” is translated into English as “gender,” which may or may not be intentional, right? Someone suggested that a solution that would translate well would be to say, instead of “gender,” something like “socially constructed sex.” Other related suggestions included: stop making English the default language; and standardize the translation of certain phrases.
Next, technological exploitation of women and girls was discussed, including so-called deep fake pornography, and related uses of technologies such as AI. This was new territory to me, and quite interesting. It became clear to me in the course of that part of the consultation that the frequent focus in AI discussions on the issue of the presence or absence of consent is misguided; the important issue is that all pornography is violence, that most of that violence is performed on women and girls, and that the whole notion of consent is inadequate in the context of sexual activity, which should be desired, not just consented to. I also learned the appalling fact that AI has already learned to be discriminatory and violent toward women. As young as it is, AI already needs to be re-educated. The good news is that there is at least one woman who has begun working on this.
The final segment was devoted to recommendations for the Special Rapporteur to address to governments. Over and over again, consultants pointed out that language is not neutral. It has the power to shape thought. For instance, people like us are now called the “anti-transgender movement.” This frames us as a hate group and, in some places, as enemies of the state. There was broad agreement that women and lesbians need to be fastidious about language, framing our concepts accurately in our own terms, and avoiding use of terms created by opposing interests for the purpose of discrediting us.
I had raised my virtual hand the moment the final segment on recommendations began. But the end of the three hours was approaching fast, and it became evident that I would not get to speak a second time. So I put the recommendations I had prepared into the chat for Reem Alsalem to review at her leisure – and for the other consultants to see in case they were interested.
So, I’m going to read you what I said, on behalf of LBORI, about language and about sexual orientation, followed by the recommendations that I put into the chat:
Introduction
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International, or LBORI, is an international network of radical feminist, lesbian organizations that have all adopted the Lesbian Bill Of Rights, or the LBOR. The LBOR is written in the form of a legislative bill that could be introduced anywhere with minor modifications. It consists of a descriptive list of unjust conditions that lesbians are subjected to, followed by an enumeration of lesbian rights that would, if implemented, address those unjust conditions. We have member organizations in Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Italy, and the United States. We believe our radical feminist analysis offers the most realistic and comprehensive tools for understanding and combating the universal structures of male domination and female subordination globally. We encourage you to visit our website, LBORInternational.com, where you will find the Lesbian Bill Of Rights and articles we have written.
Language
1. a. The LBOR defines “lesbian” as “a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” If “lesbian” is redefined to include any person who claims a lesbian identity, then the word “lesbian” becomes meaningless, and the demographic of woman-loving women is in effect erased from public discourse.
b. Lesbians should be referred to as lesbians, not as LGBTQ+, LGB, or gay. It’s best not to use language to force-team lesbians with any other demographic, because lesbians are uniquely situated, and we need unique protections.
c. The effects of forcibly erasing the actual lesbian demographic in language – whether by enabling anyone at all to claim a lesbian identity, or by forced-teaming lesbians with non-lesbian demographics or concepts – lead directly to today’s topic 3, “Sexual Orientation and Violence.” Erasure and forced-teaming lead to violence.
Sexual orientation and sex-based violence
a. So-called hate speech laws are being used to prevent sex realists from calling a man, a man. LBORI has written an article on the topic of so-called hate speech laws that can be found on our website.
b. Coercive conversion therapy is back, now coming from psychotherapy proponents of gender identity. Simultaneously, lawmakers are going through the motions of banning conversion therapy; but their bills are forced-teaming GI with SO. Since GI and SO are in direct contradiction to each other, such laws are useless, except to double-bind therapists and other counselors. LBORI has written an article on conversion therapy that can be found on our website.
c. There is extensive social shaming of lesbians for having a “transphobic genital preference.”
d. The shaming of lesbians results, at the law and policy level, in loss of public lesbian spaces, as in Australia. Here are some of the consequences of lesbian shaming:
[While I was speaking, the Special Rapporteur was listening carefully. She nodded frequently; and when I finished, she thanked me for my specificity.]
Recommendations for the report
I was here on FQT three weeks ago talking about the statements submitted by the WDI USA Lesbians Caucus and by Lesbian Bill Of Rights International (or LBORI) to the UN CEDAW Committee. The topic of both statements was: the harms of gender stereotypes and how to combat them.
I think it was specifically because of the CEDAW submission by LBORI that I was invited to a three-hour, online, live group consultation with Reem Alsalem, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and Girls, held March 19, 2025. I was completely surprised by the invitation. I’ve never done anything like that. And of course I was delighted to get the chance to speak directly to Reem Alsalem about lesbians.
The session was recorded, and so was the chat; but those recordings won’t be made public, in order to allow the consultants to feel they could speak freely. So for that reason, I don’t feel free to tell you the substance of what any particular individual said. However, I will tell you some of the interesting themes that were raised.
The Special Rapporteur provided four sub topics for the consultants to be prepared to discuss, all in relation to the main topic “Forms of sex-based violence against women and girls: new frontiers and emerging issues”. The four sub topics were:
- Language
- Sex based violence and new technologies
- Sexual orientation and sex-based violence
- Recommendations for her report
I didn’t prepare to speak on new technologies because I figured – correctly, as it turned out – that other people would be much better informed about things like AI, for instance. I did prepare to speak about language, and sexual orientation, and to make recommendations – all with respect to lesbians.
It was interesting to see who showed up for the zoom call. There were about 40 consultants present. I think all but one was a woman. Overall they seemed generally critical of transgenderism in varying degrees, although they weren’t all radical feminists (but some were). There was at least one proponent of “true trans” (that is, the notion that some people truly were born in the wrong-sexed body); and there was a small amount of frankly personal criticism of the Special Rapporteur for her continuing stance against transgenderism. I was happy to see that there were some familiar faces from WDI present also, including Dianne Post; and I’m looking forward to hearing Diane’s report on the consultation. And there was also some private networking happening in the chat, at least for me; so that was a bonus.
The first hour was spent on language and sexual orientation. Each remaining topic (i.e., new technologies and recommendations) was allotted about an hour. Combining language and sexual orientation made sense because, as it turned out, there were only two consultants who represented lesbian organizations; and we both got the chance to speak during the first hour.
It was generally acknowledged that sexual orientation is currently under-discussed; and that when it is discussed, it’s linked with “gender identity,” which makes the discussion useless. Furthermore, current discussions of lesbians often omit those lesbians who don’t identify as lesbians, but instead identify as men. It was also mentioned that more research needs to be done specifically on lesbians; domestic violence in lesbian relationships was one suggested topic.
There was some general agreement that conventional meanings of words like “woman” and “lesbian” should be used universally; and that, on one hand, neither “woman” nor “lesbian” should include men; and on the other hand, neither the word woman nor the word lesbian should be banned, as was suggested in a list put together by the Trump administration of words not to be used by US federal agencies, including “woman.” (But “girl” is apparently okay.)
It was a multinational group of consultants; so one important point that was made about language was that many languages don’t signify gender in the same ways as English or Romance languages do (in having differentiated pronouns, for instance). And some languages don’t have separate words for “sex” and “gender.” I know I’ve seen some bad translations where “sex” is translated into English as “gender,” which may or may not be intentional, right? Someone suggested that a solution that would translate well would be to say, instead of “gender,” something like “socially constructed sex.” Other related suggestions included: stop making English the default language; and standardize the translation of certain phrases.
Next, technological exploitation of women and girls was discussed, including so-called deep fake pornography, and related uses of technologies such as AI. This was new territory to me, and quite interesting. It became clear to me in the course of that part of the consultation that the frequent focus in AI discussions on the issue of the presence or absence of consent is misguided; the important issue is that all pornography is violence, that most of that violence is performed on women and girls, and that the whole notion of consent is inadequate in the context of sexual activity, which should be desired, not just consented to. I also learned the appalling fact that AI has already learned to be discriminatory and violent toward women. As young as it is, AI already needs to be re-educated. The good news is that there is at least one woman who has begun working on this.
The final segment was devoted to recommendations for the Special Rapporteur to address to governments. Over and over again, consultants pointed out that language is not neutral. It has the power to shape thought. For instance, people like us are now called the “anti-transgender movement.” This frames us as a hate group and, in some places, as enemies of the state. There was broad agreement that women and lesbians need to be fastidious about language, framing our concepts accurately in our own terms, and avoiding use of terms created by opposing interests for the purpose of discrediting us.
I had raised my virtual hand the moment the final segment on recommendations began. But the end of the three hours was approaching fast, and it became evident that I would not get to speak a second time. So I put the recommendations I had prepared into the chat for Reem Alsalem to review at her leisure – and for the other consultants to see in case they were interested.
So, I’m going to read you what I said, on behalf of LBORI, about language and about sexual orientation, followed by the recommendations that I put into the chat:
Introduction
Lesbian Bill Of Rights International, or LBORI, is an international network of radical feminist, lesbian organizations that have all adopted the Lesbian Bill Of Rights, or the LBOR. The LBOR is written in the form of a legislative bill that could be introduced anywhere with minor modifications. It consists of a descriptive list of unjust conditions that lesbians are subjected to, followed by an enumeration of lesbian rights that would, if implemented, address those unjust conditions. We have member organizations in Germany, New Zealand, Australia, Norway, Italy, and the United States. We believe our radical feminist analysis offers the most realistic and comprehensive tools for understanding and combating the universal structures of male domination and female subordination globally. We encourage you to visit our website, LBORInternational.com, where you will find the Lesbian Bill Of Rights and articles we have written.
Language
1. a. The LBOR defines “lesbian” as “a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted.” If “lesbian” is redefined to include any person who claims a lesbian identity, then the word “lesbian” becomes meaningless, and the demographic of woman-loving women is in effect erased from public discourse.
b. Lesbians should be referred to as lesbians, not as LGBTQ+, LGB, or gay. It’s best not to use language to force-team lesbians with any other demographic, because lesbians are uniquely situated, and we need unique protections.
c. The effects of forcibly erasing the actual lesbian demographic in language – whether by enabling anyone at all to claim a lesbian identity, or by forced-teaming lesbians with non-lesbian demographics or concepts – lead directly to today’s topic 3, “Sexual Orientation and Violence.” Erasure and forced-teaming lead to violence.
Sexual orientation and sex-based violence
a. So-called hate speech laws are being used to prevent sex realists from calling a man, a man. LBORI has written an article on the topic of so-called hate speech laws that can be found on our website.
b. Coercive conversion therapy is back, now coming from psychotherapy proponents of gender identity. Simultaneously, lawmakers are going through the motions of banning conversion therapy; but their bills are forced-teaming GI with SO. Since GI and SO are in direct contradiction to each other, such laws are useless, except to double-bind therapists and other counselors. LBORI has written an article on conversion therapy that can be found on our website.
c. There is extensive social shaming of lesbians for having a “transphobic genital preference.”
d. The shaming of lesbians results, at the law and policy level, in loss of public lesbian spaces, as in Australia. Here are some of the consequences of lesbian shaming:
- The term “lesbian” has come to include heterosexual men, and also to reference a category of pornography that caters to men. These have become the only acceptable uses of the term “lesbian” in so-called progressive circles.
- Hostility toward any lesbians who use the word to exclude men is internalized as shame in young or new lesbians. This hostility creates pressure on lesbians not only to identify as something – anything – other than lesbian, but to engage in sexual relations with men (or else be labeled an exclusionary Nazi bigot);
- Lesbian shaming creates unjust obstacles to new lesbians who want to come out as woman-loving women, and it is driven in part by formerly lesbian-supportive organizations that are now captured by transgender ideology;
- In many places, most notably but not exclusively in Australia, lesbians are prohibited by law from gathering publicly as exclusively female homosexuals, either to plan advocacy on their own behalf or to meet socially in single-sex spaces such as lesbian bars or public meeting halls, outside the presence of predatory men.
- As a result of increased erasure, hostility, shame, threats of violence, and outright acts of violence that target lesbians in every country,* it is currently trending for new lesbians to carefully avoid the term “lesbian” to describe themselves, and instead use terms such as “queer,” “masc” (meaning masculine), or “nonbinary.” Consequently, the numbers of self-acknowledged lesbians are greatly reduced, official data collection is skewed, there is damaging political division within the lesbian community, and lesbian political influence is further diminished.
- As a result of all of these factors, there is a scarcity of visible, positive lesbian messaging and role models, and many lesbians are socially and politically isolated, with no viable lesbian community, leaving them particularly susceptible to various forms of violence – from random physical attacks on the street, to so-called psychological counseling that can range from a diagnosis of pathology, to a diagnosis of so-called gender dysphoria, to numbing medications, to conversion therapy so that they will accept male sexual partners, and to harmful medical interventions of wrong-sex hormones and surgeries to disguise the female sex characteristics. Because why would anyone want to be a lesbian under such conditions? It understandably seems easier to mutilate your healthy female body with harmful drugs and surgeries that will seriously impact your health and your longevity.
[While I was speaking, the Special Rapporteur was listening carefully. She nodded frequently; and when I finished, she thanked me for my specificity.]
Recommendations for the report
- Coherent legal definitions, consistent with those in the LBOR, of sex-based terms, including woman, girl, lesbian, sex, gender, man, and boy.
- Legal protections for lesbians, as a sex and as a sexual orientation, as defined in the LBOR (“a human female homosexual; or, a woman or girl who is exclusively same-sex attracted”).
- Protection of single-sex public spaces where lesbians can lawfully exclude all men and boys.
- Reference in law and policy to lesbians as a discrete category, with political needs and interests that are separate from those of gay men, bisexual individuals, or individuals who claim a gender identity. The recognition that “lesbian” is a sexual orientation and not a gender identity.
- Recognition in law and policy that lesbians are first and foremost women, and must be included in all legal protections for women, regardless of their nonconformity with gender stereotypes. For example, lesbians should never be excluded from women’s public bathrooms, no matter how masculine they may present.
- Recognition in law and policy that lesbians have a right to protection as lesbians, whether or not lesbianism is believed to be innate and immutable. (So far there is no credible evidence that lesbianism has an immutable biological basis.) That is, lesbianism is not like race, but requires legal protection anyway.
- Legal protection from forced conversion therapy and from forced sterilization.
- The right of minors to be free of indoctrination into gender identity ideology, and its resulting disfiguring surgeries and drugs; and the right to grow up lesbian, gay, or bisexual, as most trans-identifying youths most likely would, absent indoctrination.
- The right to have lesbians’ sexual and romantic boundaries protected in law and policy. That is, the right to avoid men and actively seek women. This would include, for instance, the right of online dating sites to exclude men from the lesbian pool.
- The right to be free from discrimination in employment, housing, physical and mental healthcare, and public accommodations.
- The right not to have lesbian relationships and sexuality fetishized in media and in porn.
- The right to be free from discrimination in adopting children.
- The right to be free from all sex stereotypes (or “gender”), without discrimination.
- Support for detransitioned women who are lesbians, both within the lesbian community and by the medical and pharmaceutical industries.
- The right to speak freely in public about the reality of sex without being shut down under so-called “hate speech” laws. Offensive speech must be protected; in fact, offensive speech is the only speech that needs legal protection. I saved free speech for last because I believe that free speech is necessary to support every other recommendation.