Topic

lgbt rights

66 petitions

Started 3 weeks ago

Petition to Facebook

Stop Facebook silencing intersectional feminism

Hi, An extremely popular intersectional feminist group that I and some 4000 others are a part of has been disabled. This group is called 'JALI: Just a little idea...' Facebook stated the following reasons: 'JALI: Just a little idea... was disabled for not following the Facebook Terms and Community Standards. We don't allow groups containing threats of physical harm to other people or content that directly targets individuals. In addition, we don't allow groups containing hate speech or that single people out based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease.' I put to you the following definition of intersectionality: 'Intersectionality is a term coined by American feminist legal scholar, critical race theorist, and civil rights advocate Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw to describe overlapping or intersecting social identities and related systems of oppression, domination, or discrimination. Intersectionality is the idea that multiple identities intersect to create a whole that is different from the component identities. These aspects of identity are not "unitary, mutually exclusive entities, but rather ... reciprocally constructing phenomena". The theory proposes that individuals think of each element or trait of a person as inextricably linked with all of the other elements in order to fully understand one's identity.' Upon reading the above, I will now urge Facebook to reinstate our intersectional feminist group without delay. Our Admin received a message stating that we have somehow breached the Facebook Terms, even though threats of physical harm to other people / hate speech that singles people out based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, gender, sexual orientation, disability or disease are exactly the things JALI: Just a little idea... actively fights against every single hour of every single day. JALI: Just a little idea... is not a space for hatred and discrimination. It is a space that fights hatred and discrimination. It is a space that allows the victims of hatred and discrimination to come forward and share ideas, stories, learning opportunities and offer group therapy in an online environment that makes them feel safe, loved, appreciated and, most importantly, heard. So many individuals have joined this space in the four years since our Admin started it who have had their lives turned around just by meeting people who are like them, or at the very least, are willing to listen to and learn from them. In disabling this page, Facebook, you are silencing voices that have already been silenced once before: in a world where threats of physical harm and discrimination / hate speech were not fought against. There are countless significantly more harmful groups that exist on Facebook that I hope to direct your attention towards, such as Britain First and Return of Kings (to name just a couple). These need Facebook intervention more than JALI: Just a little idea... does. JALI: Just a little idea... is a positive space, and its members are grateful that Facebook has provided us with a platform to exist on. Many of us do not know each other outside of the internet, and Facebook has allowed us to come together and form meaningful friendships. Please do not keep this space away from us. Sincerely,All the members of JALI: Just a little idea... - Karis JALI has become such a big part of all our lives - it serves as a space for us all to discuss feminism, mental health, our every day lives, in an environment that is non-judgemental, supportive, and safe. It is a space for women and non binary-folk.  Please let's all sign this petition, send it to every single member of JALI - we need JALI back! - Wilhelmiina Sjoblom

Willa Sjoblom
1,085 supporters
Update posted 4 weeks ago

Petition to OPUS : Organisation for Promoting Understanding of Society

OPUS, cease support & promotion of Transphobic speech in academia

We ask that OPUS cease support and promotion for the event “Attacks on Thinking in the Age of LGBTQWIIAP+” on the 23rd September 2017. We believe that the dishonest and exclusionary approach put forward in the event is, rather than being an expression of free speech, stifling the very possibility of a productive conversation about the issues the event is purporting to raise. Furthermore, this approach signals a dangerous refusal either to engage honestly with current knowledge regarding transgender issues, or to seek to move beyond a political frame informed by cisgender privilege. The promotional material for this event argues that increasing mainstream acceptance of notions of “gender fluidity, intersexuality [and] transsexuality” constitutes a threat to the impartiality of researchers and academics. The example provided is Rebecca Tuvel’s article “In Defence of Transracialism,” for which the journal Hypatia subsequently issued an apology. We believe that this example constitutes a misrepresentation both of the content of the article itself and the controversy created by it. Firstly, to claim that Tuvel suggests “similarities between transracialism and trans-sexuality” implies an investigation of these concepts which is absent from her article, the object of which is (as the title suggests) a political defence of transracialism. Secondly, even a cursory examination of the criticisms directed towards the article, such as the open letter to Hypatia, the public apology by Cressida Heyes or the many commentaries by scholars working in the field of critical race theory and transgender studies will reveal far more substance to these criticisms than a challenge to the “legitimacy” of questions she may or may not have raised. Rather, they refer to serious and potentially damaging theoretical and ethical failures. In particular, it was argued that the dehistoricization of the categories of gender and race and the reduction of these categories to interchangeable axes of oppression is harmful because it seeks to conceal and thus legitimate the particular history of conceptual and literal violence which accompanies these categories and which is not, as the article alleges, confined to the past but continues to this day in the form of racist and transphobic discrimination. Again, we can only assume that the decision to characterize these arguments as “attacks on thought” is, in and of itself, an attempt to delegitimize forms of political critique which are, in fact, highly relevant to the issues this event proposes to cover. Again, we wish to stress that this is not an attempt to shut down much needed examination and critique, both in the field of psychotherapy and in academia more broadly, of therapeutic approaches to treating transgender people. However, we believe that this process must be attentive to and engaged with the consequences which transgender people may face as a result, and should where possible seek to include transgender perspectives and to invite dialogue. We do not believe that framing critique of the political implications of knowledge as “attacks on thought”, or denying the legitimacy of transgender perspectives by presenting those who hold them as bullying activists or passive victims who are “shepherded into hormonal and surgical treatment” meets this standard. Similarly, we question the necessity or relevance of a conversation about transgender identities which resists critique, refuses engagement beyond disciplinary lines and which treats transgender people themselves as problems, rather than as the potential beneficiaries of such a conversation. Above all, we find it deeply alarming that OPUS is facilitating a public event featuring a speaker with a history of outspoken transphobic and unsupported social media statements, such as comparing sex reassignment surgery to genital mutilation or voluntary amputation and equating gender with the possession of chromosomes. That this event utilizes misleading information to present a narrative in which the diversity of gender expression is presented as a threat to researchers and academics is particularly disturbing. The past century has provided many examples of psychoanalysis and analytical psychology being wielded against LGBTQ+ persons. Whether it was Jung’s claims of ‘curing homosexuality’, or more recently, Nicolosi, who in his CV “would revive this now-abandoned body of case studies and psychoanalytic literature written by the founding fathers and mothers of his profession” to found NARTH, one of the largest 'gay conversion therapy' movements in the USA, the delegitimation and removal of agency from LGBTQ+ persons is dangerous. Particularly when medical accessibility is already difficult for transgender individuals. We suggest, conversely, that the practice of psychotherapy entails a degree of influence and the ability to play a role in shaping the future treatment of transgender individuals, who are at widespread and demonstrable risk of attacks to the legitimacy of their gendered identities, attacks on their inclusion within the rights and privileges accorded to human beings and ultimately attacks on their physical person. To this end, we hope you will agree that this event does not meet your stated organizational aims of promoting understanding of social processes, or of encouraging responsible citizenship. Thomas Sparrow, Doctoral Candidate in Gender Studies.Shehzad Raj, Doctoral Candidate in Psychoanalysis.

Shehzad Raj
138 supporters