Month: July 2025

Radical Feminists Advance at National NOW Conference

Posted on by

By Butch Barbie

NOW held its annual membership conference in Las Vegas July 10-13.  The conference was hybrid, with elections and plenaries streaming on Zoom.  Issue hearings and workshops were also held but not streamed to virtual attendees.

For the first time in recent memory, a caucus of radical feminists pushed 2 resolutions through issue hearings for a vote by the membership.  A third resolution passed by petition with 35 signatures. The group was surprised that the resolutions passed were the most ‘controversial’—Single Sex Prisons and Online Age Verification for Pornography through the issue hearings, and Lesbian Only Spaces by petition.  The next step would have been a floor vote by the members on Sunday, the last day of the conference.

Unfortunately that day never came.  Elections were held for a new President and Vice President on Saturday afternoon.  Normally the candidates are advised of the results Saturday evening and officially announced Sunday morning.  Instead, Sunday morning the conference was cancelled by parliamentarian Lynette Henley, who stood on stage with Elections Committee co-chair Rosa Colquitt and outgoing VP Bear Atwood.  Citing unnamed (and still unproven) ‘third parties’ interfering with the election, and lack of quorum (untrue and quorum was not challenged), Henley declared the conference void.  Atwood then adjourned the conference.

This unexpected turn of events was met with outrage by those present and online as well.  When a board member challenged the Parliamentarian, she was screamed at and threatened by VP Candidate Triana Arnold James to keep away.  Members ended up gathering for strategy sessions which continued for 2 weeks.

After a secret board meeting convened by outgoing President Christian Nunes who falsely claimed the election was hacked, the Election Committee finally revealed the results of the officer election. The winning slate with 76.9% of the vote was Kim Villanueva for President and Rose Brunache for Vice President.  Rose is a young African American radical feminist from the Washington DC chapter.  Kim, an out Latina lesbian from Illinois, is a longstanding NOW member who has served at nearly every level in the organization and is willing to open up dialogue on our issues.

As for the resolutions, the normal procedure is for the national board to vote on them at their next meeting if they hadn’t been voted on at the conference.  Since nothing was normal about this conference, we will have to wait until the September board meeting to see what happens.

 

 

THOUGHTS ABOUT THE SKRMETTI DECISION

Posted on by

By Ann Menasche

This piece is the opinion of the author and does not necessarily reflect the opinions of Feminists in Struggle as an organization.

Radical feminists, parents and many others holding a range of political views, welcomed the Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti issued on June 11th upholding the constitutionality of a Tennessee law banning the practice of so-called “gender affirming care” for minors under 18.  Many were anxious to put a stop to this medical experiment on a vulnerable group of children and teens, mostly girls, who are gender non-conforming, autistic, and/or survivors of trauma, a majority of whom, if provided appropriate support, would be likely to grow up lesbian or gay with their bodies and fertility intact.

The decision moved the struggle to the states against this sexist and homophobic practice (based on the idea that some people are born “wrong” and need “fixing” so their bodies “align” with sex stereotypes).  Already, 26 states have passed restrictions or bans on use by minors of puberty blockers, cross sex hormones, and cosmetic surgeries for “sex change” and more such laws are now likely.  This is good news especially for these “trans kids” whose bodies are being experimented on and permanently harmed.

But like all victories issued under this right-wing court, some of the reasoning in the decision may be a bit of a two-edged sword that could be used against women’s rights in the future.

The majority decision by Justice Roberts held that Tennessee’s law was not subject to heightened (“intermediate”) scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because it did not classify based on sex.  Neither did the law classify based transgender status but merely regulates a medical procedure, removing one set of diagnosis – gender dysphoria or incongruence – from a range of treatable conditions.  Such classifications based on age or medical use are subject only to rational basis review.  This is easily passed here.  The Court points to medical and scientific uncertainty and the reviews and restrictions on use of these treatments on minors coming out of the UK, Sweden, Norway, and other countries.  Justice Roberts also distinguishes Bostock; and further points out that Tennessee law has nothing to do with sex stereotyping or restrictions on clothing, behavior etc. All good news.

However, the Court majority relies on and reinforces some very bad law – that discrimination based on pregnancy or pregnancy-related conditions, including bans on abortion do not constitute sex discrimination because not all women are pregnant, even though only women can get pregnant or seek abortions.  “Thus, although only transgender individuals seek treatment for gender dysphoria, gender identity disorder and gender incongruence – just as only biological women can be become pregnant – there is a ‘lack of identity’ between transgender status and the excluded medical diagnosis.”  Therefore, even were the ERA recognized as part of the Constitution and sex treated as a suspect class subject to strict scrutiny, abortion bans or other discriminatory treatment based on pregnancy could not be successfully challenged as sex discrimination with the current Supreme Court majority.

The concurring opinions are noteworthy.  Justice Thomas’ description of the horror of what “gender affirming care” actually consists of in practice is quite good; as is Justice Barrett’s review of why the transgender population does not share “the obvious, immutable or distinguishing characteristics of a discrete group” to be a suspect class, like sex or race.  Rather, the transgender population is “large, diverse, and amorphous.” and lacks a history of de jure discrimination that women and people of color have faced. The dissent points to bans on cross-dressing and sodomy laws as proof of de jure discrimination against transgender persons; however, in my view, those laws target gays and cross-dressers, and do not specifically target individuals with transgender identities or who medicalize to hide or deny their sex.

Justice Sotomayor’s dissenting opinion argues that discrimination based on transgender status is a sex-based classification, and that the Tennessee law is discriminatory.  She believes that hormones and surgeries are “a matter of life or death”; she also implies that it is possible to switch puberties.  Justice Kagan, while also calling for heightened scrutiny, to her credit, takes no view on how the Tennessee law would fare under such scrutiny.

Finally, not one Justice thinks sex discrimination claims under Equal Protection should be subjected to strict scrutiny.  Of course, there is no mention of the ERA.  Though sex is deemed immutable, because of the existence of biological sex differences that society “celebrates”, the Court unanimously rejects strict scrutiny for “sex” that is accorded race discrimination.  The entire Court is therefore committed to maintaining women’s second-class status.