As Pride Month begins, both history and the future hang over it.

Narratives are critical. Queer activism and discourse often, like most other groups and identities, emphasises the common highlights of the past: the Stonewall Riots is a great example of this. And with this year being the 50th anniversary of the first Pride march (which came to be because of the Stonewall Riots), it’s of note to discuss the influence of history today, and how it interacts with the present threats that clouds the future.

‘X threw the first brick’ is not really a statement of fact. It’s a statement of political opinion. A common version is that Marsha P Johnson, a black, trans sex worker, did. Often it’s said by those who want to stress the inclusion of trans people in queer activism. That’s more than understandable. However, the truth is no one knows who threw the first brick against a police force that routinely assaulted those who frequented Stonewall Inn; exploitive Mafia owned bar, and other Queer bars. Sylvia Riveria doesn’t know and she was there. The issue though is not necessarily the inaccuracy of that event, but in how it affects how we assess and look at queer activism since Stonewall. It paints a picture of cosy, everyone in unison, solidarity against an oppressive state when often that wasn’t the case – the 70s and 80s saw a growing separation between Gay and Lesbian activists because of the (at times) misogynistic nature of gay male culture, and groups like the Gay Liberation Front were led exclusively white gay men. This meant too the exclusion of people of colour from these spaces, which led to a Venn Diagram of marginalisation in not just wider society but in various ethnic minority communities and in the said queer scene. Bisexual inclusion was opposed until the 90s in the anglosphere. And trans activism was at times separate from this wider movement. The fact there were trans figures in the GLF, like author Roz Kaverny, doesn’t negate these imperfections. The historical narratives we accept then, the ones we take ‘pride’ in or use to promote contemporary causes, are not always accurate.

Why is this a problem?

The problem emerges from how certain, popular narratives can be exclusive. Take the ‘gender critical’ version of women’s history. There’s a reason why certain groups which are opposed to trans inclusion use the suffragette flag. It claims a lineage that goes back to Mary Wollsencroft, who authored Vindication of the Rights of Women (and like most writers of the time used ‘sex’ to describe both biology, sexual orientation and gender expression), but often uses the language of Suffragette and post-Suffragette feminism. In many ways it’s a celebration of how far ciswomen have come: the insistence on (very much so) hard won rights and achievements like Nancy Astor becoming an MP. And the narrative says a key threat to all this, both in progress and in safety of women, is the ‘sudden’ rise in trans people existing, particularly trans women, and that trans men are lost lesbian siblings. There are numerous issues with this, from how it treats women as a continuously homogeneous political block, to ignoring how figures and institutions like Astor and newspapers were and are incredibly homophobic. But the narrative is popular (though not as much as has been claimed).

How do you challenge a narrative like that?

One way would be to point out the contributions to women’s history by trans figures, like Irene Clyde (who helped edit a journal on women’s liberation in the 20s and was a Suffragette). Another is to point out the simplification of historical narratives, to the point of whitewashing (both Labour and the Conservatives have a habit of this!). Perhaps the best way is to stress a queer and trans history that isn’t just a mythology to recite. Quite, this month books like Before We Were Trans are going to be released. Rather, a history that is warts and all, that while popular in audience is also critical, and that is not exclusive to one group. In that sense, what we need is this: 

Inclusivity.

Often limitations, on the never guaranteed fight for queer rights and liberation, is the development of a survivalist mentality. That we shouldn’t help other groups because they’re not us. That thinking is wrong on many levels, just by a simple check of demographics. It’s wrong too because it’s how we get rainbow capitalism where Pride is a fossil funded party and a quarter of homeless youth are LGBTIQA+. It’s how we get institutional attacks on trans and non-binary people. And it’s how the continuation of police and institutional violence against people of colour and women continue. Intersectionality sometimes comes off as too jargonistic at times. But what is meant is simple: oppose the divisions we’re told exist and work together.

We must ensure then, in the face of rainbow capitalism and exclusionary narratives, that Pride is meant to be inclusive. It hasn’t always lived up to this. But we must use that history we possess and the histories we uncover in two ways: to understand why we are here and what happened, and to help create something new, inclusive and amazing. 

Our past is full of tragedy, and farce. But by learning about that, and combining it with grace, we can win the future.

Written by: Seb Cousins

The post Pride’s History is Key to Liberation Today appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

The UK Government has proposed plans to send refugees to Rwanda to have asylum claims processed. Flying refugees 4500 miles away, when they have already made dangerous journeys fleeing from war and persecution, is inhumane. We do not need a “migration and economic development partnership”: we need compassion. This system, based on the Australian ‘offshoring’ model, will fix nothing but will cause more pain, and cost a lot of money.

For LGBTIQA+ refugees, Rwanda is not a safe place. Last year, Human Rights Watch reported that police or local security officers target LGBTIQA+ individuals, detain them, and in some cases beat them, after reports of homosexual activity or engaging in behaviour that doesn’t fit gender stereotypes. Many remain in the closet, due to fears of discrimination, and, in fact, some LGBTIQA+ Rwandans have applied for asylum in the UK on these grounds. 

Rwanda’s human rights record is poor on other fronts too. Last year, the UK delivered a statement on Rwanda, with recommendations to improve their human rights record. The Rwandan government persecutes those who speak out against it, as freedom of expression is limited. The detention and mistreatment of homeless children and sex workers also occur and there are off-the-record detention centres, where torture occurs. Previously, refugees were shot for protesting against poor conditions in refugee camps.

The continued lack of regard for refugees by Priti Patel, and the use of them as scapegoats is disgusting. The real issue is the lack of safety given to refugees: we need safer routes of passage to the UK. Vulnerable people deserve to be treated with respect.

We urge you to join us in standing in solidarity with people seeking asylum in the UK and in taking action against the Government’s inhumane ‘Rwanda refugee’ strategy.

Write to your MP using Rainbow Migration’s template, and ask that they vote against the Nationality and Borders bill when it returns to Commons next week.

Sign Detention Action’s petition.

Yours in solidarity,

LGBTIQA+ Greens

The post LGBTIQA+ Greens Rwanda Refugee Statement appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) is supposed to ‘promote and uphold equality, human rights ideals and laws across England, Scotland and Wales’, yet this response fails trans and non-binary people, and the entire LGBTIQA+ community.

Updating your gender should be simple, and as Green Party policy states, we support the right for individuals to update their legally recognised gender by self-determination, the only requirement being a statutory declaration. The EHRC warning the Scottish parliament from going ahead with these plans is deeply damaging, and shows their lack of regard for trans and non-binary people, lived experience and expert opinion.

The rights and protection of trans and non-binary lives is a necessity and the ban of so-called ‘conversion therapy’ must include them. The EHRC’s suggestions are ill-informed, and puts our trans siblings at further risk from this psuedo-scientific torture.

As an supposedly ‘impartial’ equality organisation, they should have done far better. The statements, and recent evidence showing that senior officials at the EHRC met with anti-trans lobbyists, highlights their incompetence. These actions have undermined the EHRC’s ability to upload human rights and do its job, leaving the commission no longer fit for purpose. It is concerning that this ‘impartial’ organisation has become a voice for the government, who has continually delayed any action to support our trans and non-binary siblings. We join the many LGBTIQA+ organisations and human rights groups in condemning the EHRC. Our communities need a stronger human rights organisation.

We urge you to complete the conversion therapy consultation by February 4th and to sign Stonewall’s open letter to review the EHRC.

To find out what else you can do to help make sure the law protects all LGBTIQA+ people from conversion therapy, check out this page.

The post LGBTIQA+ Greens response to EHRC statement on upcoming LGBTIQA+ legislation appeared first on LGBTIQA+ Greens.