A motto for ICASM?

[Tim Hammond]

It occurs to me that it might be helpful to create a slogan for ICASM that can be easily understood when we talk about the beliefs and goals under which ICASM operates. In this regard I borrow from the relatively well-known phrase "No one is free until everyone is free" and I suggest this adaptation: "No one's genitals are safe until everyone's genitals are safe."

Alternatively: "No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe".

Alternatively: "To liberate the body of women, we must liberate the body of all."

This phrase is borrowed from this article:

Making men — a feminist reflection on routine male circumcision

By Luca Tesei Li Bassi - 02.06.2020

Thoughts?

[Laurent Dualiac]

Laurent Dualiac <dual...@gmail.com>

17:26 (il y a 1 heure)

À Tim, International

I agree with your proposal, i like very much

 "No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe

but i prefer

"To liberate the body of women, we must liberate the body of all." because it includes women in  ICASM It is  a good way to manage to federate people. Maybe put the word and betewin the two sentances.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Thank you Tim for this excellent idea to think about a motto for the coalition. I suggest you check out the thread on the Name for the international collaboration which contains a lot of analysis that can feed creativity on this motto issue.

I draw attention to a subtlety in the choice of the current name "The Bodyguards". It is possible that this name is disabling for the coalition because of its not very serious "fun" side, and that it would have been better to have stayed with the classic and consensual "genital autonomy" (which unfortunately has a restriction to genitals only and does not include all sexual organs), with a name like "International Coalition for Genital Autonomy". An interest in the name The Bodyguards is to be able to broaden the coalition's mission in the future with alliances extending to very buoyant contemporary movements, in particular by getting closer to organisations fighting against violence against children, or against sexual violence (MeToo), which the name "International Coalition for Genital Autonomy" does not allow.

Typically, "violence against children" is the nocirc (and intersex) angle of attack that was used in 2019 in Finland, in this government policy (our colleague Tiina Vilponen from Sexpo is co-author of the chapter on male circumcision) :

--------------

Non-Violent Childhoods - Action Plan for the Prevention of Violence against Children 2020–2025 (PDF), Ministry of Social Affairs and Health - Finland, 2019

Boys (chapter 14.4, pp. 521-528):

Goal: Non-medical circumcision of boys can only be performed when the person himself gives his informed consent.

Action: A discussion about the age limit begins, i.e. about postponing the circumcision until the boy himself can join and make the decision

“The harmful effects of circumcision are greater than its benefits”

--------------

With the choice of the name The Bodyguards, the coalition is therefore ready to integrate actors in the fight against violence against children (as members of the coalition). The coalition would also be well advised to send an open letter to the UN + UN-CRC and other child protection institutions such as UNICEF, based on this 2019 policy document in Finland, as long as it is still sufficiently fresh.

The 2 mottos proposed by Tim are therefore very much in line with this enlargement strategy wanted by the name "The Bodyguards", more than a restriction of the motto to "Genital Autonomy".

"To liberate the body of women, we must liberate the body of all" is very clever, but more restricted in its scope than "No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe": sexual violence or violence against children appears less directly for example, and corresponds less to the protective / safety message of The Body”guards”.

[kevinrba...@gmail.com]

"The sun never sets on our cause or our people"

We are a global collective that occupies all time zones, our efforts are not interrupted even by sleep.  

[Timothy John]

Jean-Christophe,

Please allow me a few comments on your 17 Feb post, especially this sentence:

An interest in the name The Bodyguards is to be able to broaden the coalition's mission in the future with alliances extending to very buoyant contemporary movements, in particular by getting closer to organisations fighting against violence against children, or against sexual violence (MeToo), which the name "International Coalition for Genital Autonomy" does not allow.

While I consider violence against children and sexual violence (Me Too) to be serious issues, it is not my main concern. There are other movements, organizations and governmental institutions concerned with those issues. The issue of genital cutting, which indeed is an act of violence against children, is much different however from these other acts of violence, because (to my thinking) genital cutting ceases to be violence when the act is chosen by an autonomous adult.

I think it is proper for The Bodyguards to seek out alliances with other groups who fight violence against children or who advocate for children's rights to bodily integrity and genital autonomy, however, I don't believe this extends to "Me Too." As far as I know, no person (woman or man) chooses to be the victim of sexual violence, whereas there are many adults in the world (female, male, intersex) who choose to have their genitals cut and modified for a variety of reasons.

The Bodyguards, as a federation of groups, may wish to become - at some future date - an organization that tackles other forms of violence and human suffering. However, I think it's vitally important that, for the time being, it should remain tightly focused on the issue of childhood genital cutting, which is a mission that will likely keep all of us occupied for the remainder of our natural lives.

I hope these insights are helpful.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Hello Tim,

Your "No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe" proposal is inspired by Martin Luther King "No one is free until everyone is free". Is it possible to shorten your proposal a little bit to make the slogan more nervous and easy to remember?

For example, can we say without betraying your idea:

"No one is safe until everyone is safe"

or

"No one's body is safe until everyone's is safe"

[Timothy John]

Jean--Christophe and Kevin,

Thank you for these thoughtful comments about a motto for ICASM. Below are my thoughts.

A) "The sun never sets on our cause or our people"

This appeals to my sense of pride in who we are as intactivists and our noble cause of protecting children from genital cutting. As an internal slogan just among ourselves I see no problem with this. As an external expression to the world of who ICASM is, however, I believe it brings too much focus on "us" as individuals and as a group but says little about what our cause is.

B) "No one is safe until everyone is safe"

This phrase gets us closer to the nature of our cause, but (to me, if I were an outsider) I would say it is insufficient and vague. "Safe from what?" is what an outsider might ask.

C) "No one's body is safe until everyone's is safe"

I understand the desire to remain close to Martin Luther King Jr's very brief original statement: "No one is free until everyone is free." I believe one of the beauties of his statement is its repetitive word symmetry on each side of the word "until". In this new abbreviated suggestion, however, I think it's a mistake to abbreviate by omitting the second occurrence of the word "body". I creates a semantic imbalance. For this reason, if ICASM chooses to use the motto I'm suggesting ("No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe") I think it makes more sense to leave it intact.

However, I have the following modifications to offer:

C1) "No child's body is safe until every child's body is safe." This makes it clearer (I hope) that ICASM is concerned about the bodies (and bodily integrity) of children. As far as I know, ICASM is not organized to fight against adults who choose body modifications. Or am I wrong?

2) With some help from a graphic artist, we could perhaps make it even clearer that ICASM's concern over the unequal treatment of children's bodies is gender-based. Regardless of which motto we use (C or C1), if the motto includes two occurrences of the word "body", then make the letter "o" in the first occurrence of the word "body" into a female symbol (b♀dy). Make the letter "o" in the second occurrence of the word "body" into a male symbol (b ♂dy). To be inclusive of intersex children, perhaps take the letter "t" in the word "until" and append a (male) arrow to the top of the "t" and a (female) plus sign to the bottom of the "t". With some skillful graphic artistry, maybe the body of the "t" could be made to look more like a "+" as if to say that intersex is male "plus" female. Another interpretation of the "+" could mean that combining the struggle for female bodily integrity + male bodily integrity makes everyone safer.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

The idea of using the motto graphics to reinforce the message seems really great!

Beware of the temptation of American intactivists to restrict the fight against sexual mutilation to "children", which no doubt comes from the neonatal circumcision that is specific to the USA (then not much men circoncised as adults). In Europe, we have adults who have accepted circumcision advised by their doctor because their consent was not informed, and who bitterly regret this circumcision. We have such cases in Droit au Corps, for example, for incomplete retraction of foreskin in adulthood. See Alex's suicide, circumcised as an adult. See also UNAIDS (and WHO) VMMC campaign, which is based on a clear lack of consent towards adults. It is true that in terms of "communication", it is often interesting to resonate the image of "vulnerable children", but in terms of the "mission" of the coalition, it also extends to adults, particularly in its support for the victims of circumcision (restoration of the foreskin etc). At the last coalition meeting, Dan indicated that there would be an increasing number of circumcised men in Finland as adults (he saw that at the swimming-pool in Helsinki few years ago). And in Japan, a member of Droit au Corps who lives there tells us that there is a development of business that offer adults cosmetic circumcisions on the model of tattoos (there are academic studies on this subject in the specific case of Japan).The Motto cannot therefore be restricted to children.

For the moment it seems to me that the best candidate to propose to the coalition (at the Agora at the end of February? or March?) would be "No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe",  with creativity in design following Tim's idea.

Le samedi 20 février 2021 à 10 h 25 min 59 s UTC-5, Timothy John a écrit :

[] I believe one of the beauties of his statement is its repetitive word symmetry on each side of the word "until". In this new abbreviated suggestion, however, I think it's a mistake to abbreviate by omitting the second occurrence of the word "body". I creates a semantic imbalance. For this reason, if ICASM chooses to use the motto I'm suggesting ("No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe") I think it makes more sense to leave it intact.

 

[] ICASM is not organized to fight against adults who choose body modifications. Or am I wrong?

 

[] With some help from a graphic artist, we could perhaps make it even clearer that ICASM's concern over the unequal treatment of children's bodies is gender-based.

[Timothy John]

Here is my initial reaction to: " Beware of the temptation of American intactivists to restrict the fight against sexual mutilation to "children", which no doubt comes from the neonatal circumcision that is specific to the USA (then not much men circoncised as adults). In Europe, we have adults who have accepted circumcision advised by their doctor because their consent was not informed, and who bitterly regret this circumcision. "

I recognize that the European problem differs from the U.S. problem. Do we have any members of ICASM who were coerced into circumcision as an adult and who now regret it? If so, this is a separate, but still important, issue that should perhaps be addressed by those men.

I believe this goes to the heart of the struggle within intactivism - and perhaps ICASM - about whether we work to defend "genital integrity" or "genital autonomy". If ICASM is about "autonomy" then we will find many people and organizations throughout the world who will understand our goal and with whom we can form alliances. If it's about "integrity" - and trying to save people from making autonomous decisions that they might regret later - I think the pool of people and institutions we can work with will be much smaller.

I don't know for sure, but I think this might have been the struggle that the anti-FGC groups may have had to struggle with early in their development. They recognize that adult women are pressured, even with autonomous consent, to get circumcised. So their fight is not just for girls, but also for women. So with whom did those groups mostly choose to form alliances? With powerful women's groups!

If we want to make the same claim for men - that they are being coerced into making autonomous decisions to get circumcised - with whom shall we form alliances? Men's groups, who are viewed with skepticism by the larger society and international organizations? Certainly not children's groups! I know of no human rights organizations that would call this a human rights violation (regardless of what we think). I also believe that most people in the world would have the opinion that even if you were pressured to get circumcised as an adult, if you didn't do your homework before deciding and ended up later regretting it, your human rights were not violated. I know this sounds coldhearted, but I think that's how most people would view this.

The work to defend children from genital cutting is difficult enough - centered on the growing human rights recognition that this is about children's "autonomy" - without adding another layer of difficulty trying to defend adult genital "integrity" at all costs.

While coercion of adults to get circumcised is a problem everywhere (esp. VMMC in Africa) perhaps such projects should be taken on by specialized task forces or committees in those countries where the problem is especially acute, and should not be a primary concern of ICASM, unless, as I suggested earlier, a specific sub-group in ICASM wants to make this their special focus area.

These are just my initial impressions.

[Michael Winnel]

I appreciate all the excellent suggestions from Tim Hammond. It is very challenging to find the right motto. Seems reasonable for now to go with the submitted Agora proposal "No one's body is safe until everyone's is safe". But over time I hope we can brainstorm further. My issue with this motto is the musicality and the context - it's a motto in the context of the name "The Bodyguards", so it is not clear at all it is pointing to genital cutting or sexual mutilation. And the musicality just doesn't harmonise in the same way as MLKs No one is free until everyone is free, which is intuitive, clear, and concise. 

JC likes the motto, but acknowledges the musicality of this motto could be a problem for native English speakers like myself. JC goes on to say "What I like about this motto too is that it obviously doesn't seem true, just as the MLK motto doesn't seem true either. However, these 2 mottos are true on one condition, that one has understood the illusion of the ego and that one has moved on to universal consciousness! This is the reason for the choice of Mandela's quotation, based on the same principle, which was used in the Algosphere Alliance to illustrate 'extended' consciousness:

The chains on any one of my people were the chains on all of them, the chains on all of my people were the chains on me. 

Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom."

Interesting to note that Algosphere Alliances motto is simply "For the Alleviation of Suffering". Perhaps TB's motto could likewise be something similar; simple and pragmatic. The Bodyguards, "For the Abandonment of Genital Cutting". 

Cheers, Michael 

Foreskin Revolution Australasia 

TB Facilitator 

[circharmsurvey]

Michael,

I appreciate hearing your thoughts, however, I want to clarify that my original proposal was: "No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe." In an earlier post (Feb 20) I explained why I disagreed with Jean-Christophe's proposal to shorten this to "No one's body is safe until everyone's is safe." I believe that by removing the second occurrence of the word 'body' it leaves the motto asymmetric and it lacks reinforcement of the concept that we're talking about people's bodies.

Perhaps a modification of this could be: "No one's body is safe until all bodies are safe."

However, to Michael's concern about the motto: "... it is not clear at all it is pointing to genital cutting or sexual mutilation." I agree. Indeed, before suggesting to ICASM the adoption of: "No one's body is safe until everyone's body is safe" I had originally conceived of: "No one's genitals are safe until everyone's genitals are safe." This would certainly make clear that ICASM is about genital cutting/sexual mutilation, but I was unsure how that motto might be perceived if ICASM approaches prestigious institutional bodies (e.g., U.N.).

But, why not be bold ! ? !

To my ears, the suggestion of: "For the Abandonment of Genital Cutting" (FABC) sounds weak and passive, whereas "No one's body..." sounds to me more like a warning to the world, and perhaps a rallying cry that awakens people to the urgency of the matter and the need for unity, esp. knowing that only SOME bodies are currently protected (i.e., girls, and to a growing extent, intersex).

This discussion about a motto shows me that ICASM appears to be in conflict with itself and perhaps this is reflected among its members. On the one hand, ICASM urges the "abandonment" of sexual mutilation. Abandonment, to me, implies a voluntary action, that we ask people to stop doing something we believe is harmful. On the other hand, ICASM calls itself "The Bodyguards" which, to me, implies taking a very active role in protecting someone from harm. As they say, "you cannot serve two masters." Until this is clarified I think ICASM will always have internal conflict.

How ICASM/TB wants to be perceived by the world will determine its motto. To me, using a "passive" motto like FABC seems inconsistent with a name like "The Bodyguards" which (again, to me) implies that it has a strong, pro-active role to play in protecting children. Yes, I do say children, and not adults at this time, because I think that it will be a much easier job to convince the world to protect vulnerable children than it will be to get the world to support effors to interfere with an adult's ability to make his or her own choices about genital modification. This goes to the heart of the debate of whether we stand for genital autonomy or "genital integrity at all costs." Perhaps after we obtain victory in protecting children's genital autonomy ICASM can move on to a plan to protect adult genital integrity.

I remind readers that the advancements made by our anti-FGC and anti-IGC allies have involved active pressure on governments and institutions that are in a position to make change happen. The anti-IGC group Zwischengeschlecht has not only held public demonstrations, but they have issued numerous supplementary reports about the plight of intersex children to not only the U.N. Comte for the Rights of the Child, but also to the U.N. Comte Against Torture, two projects that perhaps ICASM should consider emulating as part of a "global strategy." Note that Zwischengeschlecht's full name (or at least their motto) is a very forceful "Stop IGM", not "Abandon IGM."

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

If the alternative "No one's body is safe until all bodies are safe" proposed by Tim is preferred, then we can introduce his graphic idea much more easily to show that women's bodies will only be safe when men's bodies are also safe, and intersex too (here in this motto making the historical and symbolic link between GA for F>I>M) taking into account the symbol used by the intersex. I propose 2 graphic options, the second one in capital letters puts more emphasis on the intersex component since the OII is the Organisation Intersex International (but I prefer option 1) :

1 - "No one's b♀dy is safe until oll b♂dies are safe"

2 - "No one's b♀dy is safe until Oll b♂dies are safe"

[circharmsurvey]

Since the abbreviation "OII" is perhaps unknown to most of the world, including many intactivists, I propose not using it. besides, some people might assume it was a typographical error on our part. To add further confusion, it also looks to close to the English word "Oil".

Here is another proposal for the motto with the inclusion of graphics:

"No one's b♀dy is safe until ALL b__dies are safe"

Keep the female symbol in the word "body" and where the word "bodies" appears, in place of the letter "o" I propose using a symbol that appears to represent male, female, and a combination of the two. For lack of a better name, I will call this the "combo" symbol. My research indicates that this combo symbol is used by either intersex people, trans people, or both. See the two attached images of the "combo" symbol (intersex symbol1.jpg  and  Transflag.jpg).

There also appears to be no consensus of whether the "correct" intersex symbol is:

- the "combo" symbol mentioned above

- a simple circle (per the link in J-C's message)

- a circle with a "+" in the middle of the circle (see attached file "intersex symbol2.png")

- a female symbol with what appears to be "horns" at the top (see attached file "intersex symbol.png")

Is there someone within ICASM with whom we can consult about the correct/proper symbol?

In the absence of any definitive guidance, I would favor using the "combo" symbol because it seems more inclusive (intersex and/or trans) and, from a design or graphics perspective, it's more practical to use in place of the letter "o" in the word "bodies."

Tim

[John Adkison]

We may want to change article 2 by replacing "sexual organ" with "human body?"

I've invited 2 people from the Intersex community to attend the next meeting as guests.  I know of the OII organization, but, you are probably correct Tim that most of the world doesn't know them.  I do believe they are the largest organization (at least from what I can tell on Facebook), however.

[circharmsurvey]

After today's ICASM call with our intersex ally Iliana - and they clarified that the circle is the preferred symbol to represent intersex - I made another attempt to redefine the proposed Bodyguards motto. Please see attached PDF.

I am by no means a graphic artist, but I'm sure you can see that the "O" in BODY uses the female symbol and the "O" in BODIES represents male, female, intersex and transgender. The intended message of the motto and its graphics is that the bodies of cisgender women will never be completely safe until the world comes together to also protect the bodies of cisgender males, intersex and transgender people.

Tim

On Tuesday, March 2, 2021 at 11:28:07 AM UTC-8 circharmsurvey wrote:

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

I have the impression that we are approaching the goal with this last proposal from Tim. I guess the next step is to invite intersex "friends" (like Eliana) to check out this thread and give their opinion on this proposal.

Note that the symbol used by transgendered people actually encompasses the intersex cause with the central circle, and that it might be sufficient in theory. This would probably require an official reinterpretation of this symbol, which may be difficult to obtain (but could be a goal of the coalition, to have 1 symbol to unify the 4 genders of cause).

[Robert Daoust]

"The intended message of the motto and its graphics is that the bodies of cisgender women will never be completely safe until..."

Why cisgender women? Why not leave "No BODY is safe" with an unaltered O in BODY?

[Steve Bown]

The intersex flag is a purple circle on a yellow background.

https://ihra.org.au/22773/an-intersex-flag/

Steve

[Steve Bown]

At Your Whole Baby we used the purple circle on a yellow background for the intersex symbol on this sticker.

Steve

On Sunday, March 7, 2021 at 5:34:05 PM UTC-8 circharmsurvey wrote:

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

NO BODY is safe until ALL B⚧DIES are safe

ok with Robert, this can be interpreted in a problematic way (aggressive towards anti-FGM associations)

The addition of the yellow background and the purple colour of the special character allows the intersex to find their way around and to show that it is not a trangenre symbol, but a symbol that represents the 4 genders: feminine, masculine, intersex, transgender.

[circharmsurvey]

I accept that it might be confrontational if you use only the female symbol in the word 'BODY', so I can live without that.

NO BODY is safe until ALL B⚧DIES are safe

However, the motto is not intended to be 'aggressive' or confrontational. It is only to point out two things:

a) True equality does not exist when only female bodies are protected

b) The hard-won laws by women against female genital cutting are unsustainable in their current form. They are threatened and will soon be undermined by pro-MGC voices who fear male intactivists. They will seek to weaken FGM laws in order to allow minor forms, just so that MGC can continue. The proposed Bodyguards motto is a reminder to women's groups to work to end ALL genital cutting, including boys.

As Sara Johnsdotter said in her 2017 article (attached):

"Sooner or later, European societies need to respond to the following questions, which, in reality, are one and the same question formulated from different perspectives:

- Why should girls not enjoy the same opportunities as boys to be incorporated into cultural
and religious communities through a ritual involving minor cutting of their genitals?
- Why should boys not have the same legal protection as girls against non-medically
motivated alterations of their genitals?"

We are not responsible for everyone's feelings in everything we say and do and we would render ourselves impotent if we try. Yes, we can give forethought to such things and try to be sensitive, but it is almost guaranteed that someone, somewhere will be offended by something we say or do.

I think the newest update to the motto by J-C is very clear, firm and non-aggressive. It is confrontational only in the sense that it reminds our audience that, when it comes to genital cutting, there is hypocrisy and a double standard to be challenged.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Another idea for a symbol spotted by Sophie in France / 4 genders:

It should be noted that the advantage of the  B⚧DIES solution is that it uses a simple "special character" available in the software's character libraries (U+26A7), so it is very easy and inexpensive to use, unlike a symbol which would require manual adaptation and the impossibility of reusing it in standard interfaces. Technical feasibility seems to me to be an important parameter to take into account while the resources of the coalition are still low to afford avoidable customisations.

[circharmsurvey]

Thanks J-C and Sophie for sharing this image. I REALLY like the symbol that Sophie found, esp. because (to me) the raised fist that emanates from the female end of the circle implies that women are fighting (or have an obligation to fight) for the rights of the rest of humanity, now that in many places there are at least some laws to protect females, but none yet to protect males or intersex or trans.

I'm sure we could find a graphic artist to re-design this image for TB to use.

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

To conclude the discussions at this stage, here is the proposal I tabled in the Agora on 28 March: if you have any objections or suggestions for improvement, please do not delay in saying so, thank you!

[Timothy John]

I have an additional thought about the correct symbol to use in the word "BODIES".

As I understand it, this symbol,  ⚧ , is representative of male/female/transgender, but not necessarily intersex. I also understand that the preferred intersex symbol is a simple circle that stands alone.

Perhaps to make it clear that Bodyguards is inclusive of everyone, the three arrows at the top and bottom of the circle should be very slightly separated from the circle itself.  ???

[kevinrba...@gmail.com]

Here is a quick graphic I have created incorporating the dedicated intersex symbol for creative inspiration and support to intersex. <3 

  

[kevinrba...@gmail.com]

Here is the original symbol I modified for anyone interested.

[Steve Bown]

My preference is no symbols in the text of the moto. In my opinion it is confusing because there is no consensus on what different symbols mean.

When we create a graphic of the motto, we can have several symbols in the graphic: male, female, intersex, transgender. The symbols would accompany the text, not be part of the text.

Steve

On Sunday, March 14, 2021 at 12:39:16 PM UTC-7 jean-christo...@laposte.net wrote:

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Motto + Logo

Thank you Steve for this wise remark (once again!) 

So, I propose that Tim's idea of the transgender symbol ⚧ slightly tweaked with a thin dividing line between the central circle (intersex symbol) and the other 3 symbols (female, male, transgender) becomes the Bodyguards logo outright. For the record, the current logo is a quick and cheap way for the coalition to have a transitional solution as soon as the website opens, while waiting for official positions to mature). This logo would be followed by the motto "NO BODY is safe until ALL BODIES are safe" which is perfectly in line with this logo.

With such a logo "patented" by The Bodyguards, the coalition would provide an elegant solution in the production of symbols, offering the first symbol of alliance between the 4 genders. Such a positioning would be very much in line with other ambitious and futuristic stances, such as the replacement of the 3rd person personal pronouns "s/he + it" by only "it" (like "they" which is valid for all 3rd person plural entities: see this discussion).

[Timothy John]

To be clear, I was only suggesting that the altered transgender symbol be incorporated into the word "BODIES" as part of the "motto". I was not suggesting that the slightly tweaked transgender symbol be the "logo" of the Bodyguards.

As I understand the discussion history before I joined, there seemed to be a wide preference for the beautiful "logo" of the multi-colored hands around the world.

I think there is good synergy and clear messaging when the "logo" (hands around the world) and the "motto" (altered transgender symbol) are used together.

Tim

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

If we want to go deeper into the idea of using this logo (liked by Tim), it is important to know that it was designed for Women's Day on 8 March, which is why the number 8 is at the heart of this logo. Sophie has obtained the agreement of this Belgian feminist organisation if the coalition wants to be "inspired" by this logo, but without copying and pasting directly of course.

[Timothy John]

Again, to be clear, I am NOT suggesting that this design by the Belgian feminist organization should be the "logo" for the TB. The previously discussed  very colorful logo of the hands around the globe is very effective, I think. My suggestion is to use a variation of this symbol only in the word "BODIES" as part the TB "motto".

Now that I understand where this symbol (with the fist) comes from, I think it might be a mistake to "appropriate" it. I support the symbol that has a circle at the center (representing intersex) with a some slight separation between the circle and each of the three arrows. This symbol replaces the letter "O" in the word "BODIES", which is part of the "motto" (NO BODY is safe until ALL BODIES are safe).

The motto would be used in addition to the "logo" (colorful hands around the world). I hope this clarifies my suggestion.

[Steve Bown]

I have two questions about the proposals for a motto in the Agora.

If we prefer the updated version of the motto in next month's proposal, should we vote NO on the older version of the motto in this month's proposal?

If I understand correctly, there will be a new proposal to add one or more symbols to the text if the text is approved.

Are these two proposals for the text of the motto only, i.e. no symbols?

Steve

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

my replies in red

Le jeudi 25 mars 2021 à 16 h 17 min 54 s UTC-4, st...@yourwholebaby.org a écrit :

I have two questions about the proposals for a motto in the Agora.

If we prefer the updated version of the motto in next month's proposal, should we vote NO on the older version of the motto in this month's proposal?

It is indeed possible to object to ensure that the 1st proposal is not used until the 2nd is validated. It can also be assumed that the ComCo will be smart enough not to put the 1st proposal online until the 2nd is validated.

 

If I understand correctly, there will be a new proposal to add one or more symbols to the text if the text is approved.

Are these two proposals for the text of the motto only, i.e. no symbols?

Yes, the 2 current proposals have no special symbols (only standard text / characters). These symbols are simply mentioned as a future perspective, but would have to be the subject of a specific proposal in the Agora to be validated.

 

Steve

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Here are several versions proposed by Julien, with the transgender symbol reworked according to Tim's idea so that it no longer corresponds to the transgender symbol but to a new symbol signifying the alliance of the 4 categories intersex, male, female, transgender.

This is what it looks like in normal size if we want to use it for the motto. Note that this coalition invention could be "patented" so that it can be included in the special character tables of word processing software, which could be an opportunity to advertise the coalition. Does anyone know what the process is for getting this new character standardised (ISO?) so that it can be added to the standard character libraries?

"NO BODY is safe until ALL BODIES are safe"

Note that there may be synergy with the choice of logo for the coalition, if this new symbol is reused for the logo, which would then be reflected in the motto and logo.

[Timothy John]

I really like Julien's design for the special character for use in the motto: purple circle (intersex) with three separated arrows (male, female, trans).

Can the special symbol be made proportional to the rest of the word "BODIES" and still be clearly seen? If not, it makes the word appear unbalanced and awkward when used in the horizontal (sentence) format. To remedy this awkwardness, perhaps the motto will appear more balanced if used in a vertical format...

       NO

     BODY

is safe until

      ALL

   BODIES

   are safe

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Tim "Can the special symbol be made proportional to the rest of the word "BODIES" and still be clearly seen?"

Yes, Julien can enlarge the space between the circle and the 3 arrows to be clearly seen.

"NO BODY is safe until ALL BDIES are safe"

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

Thanks to Henri-Paul, ally of Algosphere, here is some information about UNICODE International and the process that would allow the standardisation of 1 new character created by ICASM (alliance symbol between the 4 categories intersex/fe/male/transgender). This expert said it shoud be long process. But why not?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unicode_characters#Unicode_symbols

https://home.unicode.org/

https://home.unicode.org/unicode-14-0-alpha-review/

 

https://corp.unicode.org/reporting.html

Le vendredi 26 mars 2021 à 12 h 04 min 17 s UTC-4, jean-christophe Lurenbaum a écrit :

Note that this coalition invention could be "patented" so that it can be included in the special character tables of word processing software, which could be an opportunity to advertise the coalition. 

[Julien Robine]

Hello,

This is the link of all my graphic combinations for this project :
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/15yLP2TI5zzNZjilcZ2XJ82LFfgQPYuX8?usp=sharing

[Steve Bown]

Fannie Lou Hamer said, "Nobody's free until everybody's free." The quote should be attributed to her.

https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/fannie-lou-hamer

[Timothy John]

Thank you Steve for passing this along.  Although the ICASM motto will appear to be inspired by Fannie Lou Hamer, and I am not opposed to attribution for the inspiration, I don't think ICASM is legally (or ethically?) bound to make the attribution, esp. since we are not directly quoting her.

If ICASM chooses to adopt my suggestion for the motto, it would be paraphrasing and using different terminology, i.e.: 'nobody' becomes 'no body'... 'free' becomes 'safe'...'everybody' becomes 'all bodies'.

I guess ultimately any attribution would be up to the membership to decide and I have no problems with that.

[DAVID BALASHINSKY]

I like the motto "No Body Is Safe Until All Bodies Are Safe" but with two suggestions.  I would put the symbol with the three branches discussed above in place of the "y" in "Body" because, to me, at least, that symbol looks much more like a "y" than like an "o." 

The other is that I would recommend changing the word "Until" to "Unless," as in "No Body Is Safe Unless All Bodies Are Safe."  That takes the temporal component out of it.  My reasoning for this is that the universality of the right of genital autonomy is based not on the eventual inclusion of all bodies within the protective ambit of an established and recognized right but on the principle of universality, which means that that right already exists and should therefore, as a matter of consistency, be universally recognized.  Bodily autonomy should not be viewed as a distant goal but as a timeless, constant and eternal right: a right that precedes the genital autonomy movement, not the other way around.  We are not trying to get the world to create a right that does not yet exist but to respect a right that already does exist.  "Unless,"  therefore, takes the focus off of "when" and places it on "who."  "No Body Is Safe Until All Bodies Are Safe" addresses the question, "When will all bodies be safe?"  In contrast, "No Body Is Safe Unless All Bodies Are Safe" addresses the question, "Which bodies are safe at any given moment?" 

[Timothy John]

I agree with David's proposal to use the word "unless" rather than "until". It's more impactful for the motto to say "NO BODY is safe unless ALL BODIES are safe."