Why the anti-gays (and anti-feminists) shall be lateral allies of ICASM

[luke.a...@gmail.com]

As a gay intactivist, I have worked with anti-gay intactivists to further our shared goal of preventing the sexual abuse of children. I have no hesitation in making lateral allies with the anti-gays--in fact I am eager for it--because it makes intactivism stronger.

I love that anti-gay intactivists have the power to enter anti-gay spaces and advocate for intactivism. I cannot go to those places and be listened to or be persuasive because I'm gay, so I need the help of anti-gay intactivists to reach those audiences. 

Why do I care so much about the anti-gays if they hate me? In an alternate world, where intactivism treats the anti-gay audience as important, perhaps I would be intact. You see, my parents are anti-gay, and the fact that they are anti-gay is not a reason to refuse to reach out to them and help them protect their children from genital mutilation.

Now do you understand what is at stake here? It would be easy for me, having been persecuted for my sexual orientation, to seek revenge, and to demand that anti-gays be banned from ICASM. How narcissistic and self-defeating that would be, however.

ICASM is not a gay rights organization. Nor are we an anti-gay organization. ICASM, in my opinion, should aspire to be a unique organization in which gays and anti-gays set aside their differences and accomplish the mission. Consequently, ICASM must have zero tolerance for attacks (from within or without) on ICASM members on the basis of any external political grudge or ideology.

For example, the gays cannot purge the anti-gays, the atheists cannot purge the Christians or vice versa, and the feminist does not have the authority to attack the intactivists for being insufficiently deferential to radical feminism.

[Steven Barendregt]

I agree

[Kyle Schlegel]

Hello Luke,

I completely agree with your emphasis on intactivism over division in identity or erroneous politics.  I think that people who have different worldviews are an important avenue for spreading intactivism.  As circumcision intersects with or violates just about every concept of ethics, so we're going both need be able to work together with those who have a different ethic.  To this point, yes- we need to focus on circumcision as a highly under-served issue.

However, I think that the issue we're having is not in external outreach, but in whether ICASM's endorsement of a group would harm the brand and identity of The Bodyguards (especially as it pertains to adopting a new member).  In protecting ICASM's brand, ceding to criticism is not projective strength or confidence that we are right about our core belief.

I think ICASM would benefit from having selective rules for admission into ICASM.  However, these rules should be clear and transparent, and should be agreed-upon by the members.  Decisions should be discussed more openly, with the important step of allowing applicants to respond to concerns and address issues.  If something is a concern, it should be addressed before it is decided upon.

I will be responding to Steven B's longer post in that thread shortly.

Thanks,
Kyle

On Thursday, October 15, 2020 at 8:25:33 PM UTC-5 luke.a...@gmail.com wrote:

[Kyle Schlegel]

I sure wish I could correct those typos.  My point is that it is important to protect ICASM's brand.  But that doesn't mean we work with one set of allies such as Muslims, but not men's rights activists based on a selective application of vision.

[Timothy John]

I apologize for coming in late to this discussion but I just now discovered this thread. I too am gay, and in fact, I'm a veteran gay rights  activist from the late 1970s to late 1990s. I understand what Luke is trying to say: we need to get everyone to understand the issue of children's genital autonomy. Theoretically, this would include Neo-Nazis, white supremacists, Christian evangelicals and others who are engaged in culture wars that promote hatred and discrimination and who perpetuate suffering against other groups of people. If the goal is to protect the suffering of children "by any means possible" and an individual is in alignment with those movements that create other kinds of suffering, they are welcome to act in their own names to spread intactivist ideas.

ICASM, however, is essentially pursuing a political agenda (fighting for children's rights and to end suffering, but not aligned with any political party). As such, ICASM needs to ensure that it is pursuing its goal in a way that is consistent with its mission and values. If ICASM wants to be effective in its work, gain credibility and respect, and form alliances in the larger world with other powerful movements and institutions - like women's movement, LGBT, etc - ICASM cannot afford to align with any groups that are opposed by those other movements and institutions.

Since the 1970s, the global gay rights movement achieved its successes - not by attempting to convince misogynist, racist, religiously intolerant groups to think differently about gay people - but by making alliances with progressive groups like Amnesty International, ACLU, NOW, and other politically powerful movements.