Intersex sexual mutilation

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

In order to put an end to intersex sexual mutilation, it is essential to give them a place in different living languages. For example, they have no place in the French or English language at the level of the personal pronoun in the 3rd person singular which is blocked on the male/female binarity: "il / elle" and "he / her".

The case of the intersex provides an exceptional historical opportunity to put an end to the other gender oppressions that reign there. For example, a famous rule of French grammar states that "the masculine always prevails over the feminine" for the agreement of qualifiers.

There is this centre of interest for those who wish to collaborate on this subject:

Towards non-sexist language usage

(this is a centre of interest of the Algosphere Alliance accessible via the coalition's collaborative platform)

As a major symbol of the coalition's positioning, I am proposing that official communications of the international coalition use in the English language the only personal pronoun "it" regardless of the gender of the person being considered. This will also put an end to the specism of the English language towards animals, which will appeal to animal activists. Note that in French, the same personal pronoun is used in the third person for human or non-human animals, as well as non-living objects.

Are there any objections to making this proposal to the coalition via a future Agora?

[circharmsurvey]

I can't speak for intersex or trans people, but I only know from experiences in observing social and political discourse in the U.S. that the pronoun "it" can be highly offensive to these individuals. "It" implies they are a "thing" or some "abominable creature". "It" is a favorite term used by the right wing and Christian Evangelicals in he U.S. to refer to those whom they view to be offensive to the 'natural order' or to God. It reminds me of the same pronoun that was used by intolerant people against gay people in the first half of the 20th century.

In my experience, the English pronouns "they/them/their" are more acceptable, which we saw in Sunday's ICASM call in Iliana's caption. In fact, in many LGBT social service agencies (like Desert AIDS Project, where my rooommate works), all the employees where badges stating their name and their preferred pronouns. Examples: David (he/him/his),  Susan (she/her/her),  Pat (they/them/their).

Having said this, I defer to our intersex allies if they have a different opinion.

[circharmsurvey]

BTW, a proper protocol is developing here in the U.S. about how to address people, at least among those who consider themselves to be 'progressive' and sensitive to sexual/gender minorities. It is to ask each individual "Which pronouns do you prefer?". The response will vary from one individual to the next. Some will prefer masculine pronouns and others will prefer female pronouns. Still others will prefer the neutral or plural pronouns (they/them/their).

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

To make sure that there is no misunderstanding in my proposal, it would be a matter of using "it" for any entity, human or non-human, living or non-living (as is the case in the French language for example). "It" would therefore be used for women, for men, for intersex, non-human, plants and non-living objects.

In fact, I understand that the use of "it" in English corresponds to a very Christian speciesist view of the world, where humans are in the image of God and therefore have a particular "dignity" that distinguishes them from non-human animals in particular.

With my proposal, intersex people would have no reason to feel discriminated against since "it" would be used for everyone. I believe that the coalition has the right to make intersex people aware that the use of "they" is speciesist and serves a Christian personalist ideology (which we find with "human dignity" in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) with which it is time to break. I understand that a semantic "tradition" has been in place for a long time, which makes it "normal" for English speakers to give a specific place to humans in relation to non-humans, but the coalition is precisely there to raise awareness of harmful traditional practices, such as circumcision or language itself.

It should be noted that the coalition's ability to advocate for living languages that are free of gender oppression is one reason among others that should interest intersex or women's organizations to join the coalition.

I also specify that, in my proposal, "it" would be used as standard, but would not remove the option of qualifying "it" as feminine, masculine, intersex, non-human or non-living object. For example, "man" or "woman" would be used as standard to refer to all men or all women, but there is nothing to prevent as an option, when necessary, referring to a "white man" or a "black woman". On the other hand, language does not compel racial apartheid, i.e. does not require speaking in terms of 'White' or 'Black'. It's just an option when useful.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

In addition, for those who think that "it" is not a technically viable solution to become the sole 3rd person singular personal pronoun, it should be noted that it has worked perfectly well for centuries in the 3rd person plural with the unique "they" used for all entities, living or not, human or not, fe/male or intersex.

From this point of view, the current option of using "they" to refer to an intersex person in the 3rd person singular is confusing as it can be confused with the "they" of the 3rd person plural.

[Timothy John]

Although the proposed use of the pronoun "it" may be well intentioned, I believe it makes our work more complicated because:

- Generally speaking, referring to ANY person (in English) as "it" is highly offensive;

- As I understand our intersex friends, many prefer to use "he", "she", or "they" as a 3rd person singular. I have not heard ANY of them asking to be called "it";

- As I understand the reality of U.S. politics, referring to a woman as "it" - especially by a man - would be regarded as highly offensive;

- I do not see the anti-FGM or anti-IGM movements resorting to this type of mixing of issues in their campaigns;

- Using "it" creates for us the added burden of having ICASM's grammar perceived as being either "incorrect" or "weird" and then having to spend time, effort and argumentation to educate others why "it" is correct;

- The issue of genital autonomy is difficult and complex enough without adding the burden of fighting against "Christian specieism" or ANY issue that is not directly related to GA.

In my opinion, this philosophical argument about changing the way the world uses pronouns is a distraction from the main purpose of the genital autonomy struggle. ICASM will be stronger if it speaks to the world using the language the world understands. If it persists in taking on issues that are not central to the campaign for genital autonomy it will forever be standing at the gate as an "outsider". In my short time in ICASM I'm beginning to see signs of a desire by other individuals, movements and philosophies to co-opt - or at minimum, to transform - the issue of genital autonomy into something beyond its core focus.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Together we are stronger

The coalition was created precisely to make proposals to civil society that individual members are not able to make. I'm not sure that intersex people, when they can't even manage to end their sexual mutilation, are in a position to impose on civil society a change of linguistic tradition as profound as the use of "it" as a single pronoun in the 3rd person singular, which may explain why this proposal is little promoted (whereas the use of "they" in the 3rd person singular is optional and not an obligation, and is much easier to propose). For animalists, it's probably even worse to end speciesism between animals (it) and humans (s/he). So it takes a broader alliance to successfully impose such a language revolution.

For a large-scale social change, such as a new language habit, we need to think like urban planners who have to completely restructure a large city, in two steps:

1 - first think in 'target' terms, to check that the solution is viable from a holistic point of view

2 - then develop the "transition" plan (which is often the most difficult, but the most interesting with opportunities it creates).

For the moment, I propose only the first step, i.e. to reason in target, i.e. to project yourself into a new and unusual world, even destabilising for you, an English speaker who is immersed every day in a language tradition that is perhaps as old and anchored as circumcision. Seen from outside this ancient tradition, for a French speaker like me, using "it" as a single 3rd person pronoun is so obvious that one wonders why English speakers still reproduce this tradition without even imagining that it is possible to stop circumcising or stop using "s/he". 

In a future where everyone is used to using "it" as a single pronoun in the 3rd person singular, would this pose any particular problems? If there are no particular problems, then we can move on to step 2, which is to develop the 'transition' plan, which I think would open up many opportunities for new alliances. On the face of it, I don't think the single pronoun "it" solution for all entities is a problem since it is a solution used by other languages and it is hard to see why it works with the 3rd person plural "they" but could not work with the 3rd person singular "it".

Let's review Tim's objections to the single "it" target step 1:

• “Generally speaking, referring to ANY person (in English) as "it" is highly offensive”: in a world where all English speakers would be used to using "it/its", how would this be "offensive"? In a world where everyone is uncircumcised, why is it a problem to be uncircumcised in the collective locker room?

• “As I understand our intersex friends, many prefer to use "he", "she", or "they" as a 3rd person singular”: in a world where all English speakers would be used to using "it/its", why would intersex people want to use "he", "she", or "they" in a compulsory way, when as I said at the beginning, it would still be possible to specify the gender but only as an option, not in a compulsory way (it's the difference between being obliged to say "a White" or "a Black", or having the option to say "a white woman" or "a black intersex")?

• “As I understand the reality of U.S. politics, referring to a woman as "it" - especially by a man - would be regarded as highly offensive”: Is this also the case in the whole English-speaking world, in Australia, New Zealand, UK etc.? In a world where all English speakers would be used to using "it/its", why would "referring to a woman as "it" - especially by a man" be regarded as highly offensive?

• “I do not see the anti-FGM or anti-IGM movements resorting to this type of mixing of issues in their campaigns”: Francophone feminists have long contested the grammar rule that "the masculine always prevails over the feminine". Moreover, the solutions currently proposed in the French-speaking world to make room for intersex people are very problematic in that they considerably complicate the French language, which is already so complicated that not many people want to learn it. It is in the interest of the Francophonie to take advantage of being forced to make room for intersex people to put an end to all these aberrations of the French language. It goes without saying that if the coalition currently uses only the English language for its official positions, it will no doubt be useful one day to have other languages. Starting with the English language and the very simple solution of "it", this would open up a strong opportunity around intersex to change other languages. This would be an extraordinarily strong argument to interest Francophone feminists. In other words, as a coalition, we have an interest in understanding the interdependencies between multiple issues, even if a priori we think that male circumcision is not concerned.

• “I do not see the anti-FGM or anti-IGM movements resorting to this type of mixing of issues in their campaigns”: Do these actors have any reason to oppose "it" reform? No, especially if they understand that they need to show solidarity with intersex people (which the coalition members understand).

• “Using "it" creates for us the added burden of having ICASM's grammar perceived as being either "incorrect" or "weird" and then having to spend time, effort and argumentation to educate others why "it" is correct”: In target this problem would not exist, it is an issue to be dealt with in stage 2 of the transition plan. On the contrary, displaying such an innovation could bring extraordinary publicity to the coalition, especially in the media, which would be a powerful pull factor for multiple organisations concerned with the evolution of modern languages by removing the gender oppressions they contain.

• “The issue of genital autonomy is difficult and complex enough without adding the burden of fighting against "Christian specieism" or ANY issue that is not directly related to GA”: I never said that the coalition should fight against Christian speciesism, I said that the use of "it" would put an end to speciesism, which would be very favourable to alliances with animalists, which is an increasingly powerful social movement throughout the world (and interested to end sexual mutilation too).

• “In my opinion, this philosophical argument about changing the way the world uses pronouns is a distraction from the main purpose of the genital autonomy struggle”: I totally disagree. If we want to put an end to intersex sexual mutilation, we must give it a legal (civil status) and linguistic place in ALL living languages, not just English, which will inevitably involve major linguistic changes. But I can understand that people who only care about male circumcision are not used to mastering this kind of interdependence between different subjects. The coalition is there to open minds to think about the world in a "big picture" way in order to be more effective, even if it’s a little disturbing at first.

In general, I think that male circumcision is an extremely complex problem, which requires a very broad reading of the world, far beyond the subject of male circumcision alone. It is like the well-known problem of 4 lines to fit into a 9-point grid: the solution involves thinking outside the box.

At this stage, I don't see any obstacles to using "it/its" in target: do you see any?

Just to check, I suggest that uncircumcised people tape their foreskin for a few weeks to get an idea of what it's like to be a circumcised man, and for English speakers I suggest taping "s/he+her/his" for a few weeks in their daily life to see if it's untenable to use only "it"!

[Steve Bown]

I agree with Timothy John's comments.

In American English referring to any person as "it" is highly offensive. That fact alone should be enough reason to table the proposal.

"In my opinion, this philosophical argument about changing the way the world uses pronouns is a distraction from the main purpose of the genital autonomy struggle."

I agree. We need to stay focused on ending the genital cutting of non-consenting people.

Steve

[v.sch...@gmail.com]

PRESS RELEASE (Germany)

"Child protection depending on genital appearance? No, thanks!"

Berlin, March 26th, 2021 - The law §1631e BGB passed last night for the "protection of children with variants of gender development" comments Victor Schiering, chairman of MOGiS e.V. - A voice for those affected:

"The legislature has collectively failed to finally dare to throw things in line with general human rights. That would have meant protecting all children regardless of their genitals from non-therapeutic genital operations. Only child protection, which applies equally to all children, is strong child protection. A lot was heard last night in the German Bundestag about the fundamental right to one's own body, against social pressure and the norming of children by adults. But nice words are not enough. With the current resolution, there are more and more different protective rights for children in Germany:

So far, a child had to meet the condition 'female' in order to be protected on the genitals - written in §226a StGB.

Now it should also be protected under the condition 'variant of gender development' - written in §1631e BGB.

Only the assignment 'male' leaves children defenseless - by §1631d BGB. We ask:

When will the legislature end this legal chaos, which is already a prime example of absurdities in legal history and unconstitutionality in law schools?
When does a child finally no longer have to fulfill any condition in order to be allowed to remain as it was born?

When will the state finally protect every child equally - without exception? "

[Timothy John]

Kudos Victor! Thank you for this a clear, concise and cogent analysis about the need for protection of all children.

I believe that when females are protected by law, and then intersex children are given legal protection, it leaves only one obvious class of children unprotected...males. This is a step-by-step process that will eventually reach the consciousness of the public, the courts, and legislators. Your commentary and observations will hasten that dawning of consciousness.

Is there an online link to the news report and to your press release?

[v.sch...@gmail.com]

Dear Timothy,

thanks so much for your comment.

Here's the link to the draft:
Drucksache 19/24686 (bundestag.de)

There are several crazy things in it:

1) The Helsinki declaration is quoted (page 13)
"The Helsinki Declaration on the Right to Genital Self-Determination of the Twelfth International Symposium on Law, Genital Autonomy and Human Rights from September 30 to October 3, 2012 called for the full right to control for every person without distinguishing between standardized and variant genitalia and gender configurations through one's own genitals and reproductive organs."
One really wonders whether the ministry has not understood that they are contradicting themselves by doing so - in a text introducing a 3-class child protection-system (previously 2-class child protection).

2) "bb) circumcision in boys (page 17)

The circumcision of the foreskin of boys is specifically regulated in § 1631d BGB. On the other hand, section 1631d BGB does not apply to the circumcision of the foreskin of a child who is not male within the meaning of Section 1631d BGB (i.e. also a child with a variant of gender development)."

What a shame to be part of a country that is declaring such nonsense by the government!!!!

I am really apologizing. 

Our press release has been widely spread yesterday. We will put it online within the next days, I will tell you.

Warmly

Victor

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

In solidarity, I suggest that the coalition promote not only the WWDOGA, but other events of importance to coalition members. For transgender and intersex people, the coalition could support ExisTransInter:

October - ExisTransInter (1997 wikipedia) annual event  "the march of Trans & Intersex people and their supporters. The demands concern the rights of trans and intersex people.

[circharmsurvey]

And today (31 March) was the 12th annual  "International Transgender Day Of Visibility".

We should be aware of the following article about which pronouns are acceptable:

International Transgender Day Of Visibility: Activists Discuss The Importance Of Pronouns

Tim

[v.sch...@gmail.com]

Dear Timothy, dear all,

here is the link to the press release:
https://mogis.info/blog/pressemitteilung-kinderschutz-nach-genital-nein-danke/

Warmly

Victor

Timothy John schrieb am Samstag, 27. März 2021 um 17:23:24 UTC+1: