What Was Happening Before ‘Just Be Nice Feminism’? Part III: West Coast Lesbian Conference, 1973

Dr Em charts the history of the development of ‘just be nice’ feminism and the inclusion of trans-identified males in the women’s movement. Part 3.

Parts I & II

The West Coast Lesbian Conference, in 1973, was explosive: there was no meek acceptance of transsexuals in the Women’s Movement and lesbian groups. The transsexual Beth Elliot was publicly accused of sexual assault as ‘a woman took the microphone at the conference and declared ‘he tried to rape me four years ago! He is not a woman! He is not a lesbian!’.¹ The inclusive lesbians reported that ‘we were aware of the anti-transsexual feeling within the [lesbian] movement’.² It was reported in The Lesbian Tide, a lesbian newspaper, that after admitting one transsexual, Beth Elliot, the board began arguing that some lesbians have a penis, that there ‘was little disagreement that men had no place in the Lesbian Feminist movement. The presence and performance of San Francisco pre-operative transsexual Beth Elliott exploded in a mismanaged, miscalculated setting surrounded by general ignorance, in that the great majority of women had no prior concept or knowledge of the issue’.³ If only women would get educated. A lesbian magazine accused lesbians of ignorance if they didn’t think women could have penises, all in the defence of a ‘transsexual ally’.

In a different report Joan E. Nixon stated that ‘writing an article about the West Coast Lesbian Conference held in Los Angeles, April 13-15, 1973, is hard [because] the problems and the pain are still with me, the opportunities are lost. I remember the conference with anger, with love, with pain’.⁴ Nixon recounted how ‘the dyke conference became a battleground few had anticipated—a thousand angry women, trapped on the man’s territory, fighting with each other — lesbian against lesbian, feminist against feminist, woman against woman. Our army of shouting lovers fell into combat with each other’.⁵ This is what the inclusion of one transsexual ally – because he is special, has done lots for the movement, just be nice – did to the Women’s Movement in 1973. It was not nice for women.

Joan Nixon related the allegations, supported by the circumstantial evidence, that a leading feminist voice was frozen out by the conference organisers because she had criticised the inclusion of transsexuals. Nixon relayed how the keynote speaker ‘Robin Morgan appeared among our by-now angry and hysterical Family group, also in tears, telling us the organizers would not listen to her either, since they were so offended by her earlier speech’.⁶ She alleged that ‘the organizers… were stung by Robin’s criticism of their defence of Beth Elliott, a transsexual whose appearance on Friday night’s program was controversial. Robin condemned the organizers’ defence of Elliott as divisive (because they were defending a man) and said their defence insulted every woman there, particularly the San Franciscans, whose Daughters of Bilitis organization split over the Elliott (transsxual) dispute.⁷ Nixon claimed that ‘Robin’s speech held hard words for Elliott. She refused to use his name but called him “an opportunist, an infiltrator, and a destroyer–with the mentality of a rapist.” Heavy’.⁸ Nixon felt the inclusion of Elliot had done her an injury, she stated that ‘the Elliott controversy in LA. left a lot of bitterness and I still feel directly affronted by Elliott’s presence there’.⁹ Prioritising males over females was hurting the Women’s Movement and hurting lesbians. However, some feminists were continuing to call a man a man and criticise the case for exceptionalism, despite knowing that they would face misrepresentation and ostracization at the hands of other women.

On April 14, 1973 Robin Morgan gave the keynote address at the conference held in Los Angeles. She declared that ‘The days of women asking politely for a crumb of human dignity are over’.¹⁰ She argued that ‘First men put us in chains, and then, when we writhe in agony, they deplore our not behaving pretilly’.¹¹ She had no intention of mincing her words or softening her speech to please the male left, transsexuals and the women who had brought transsexuals into lesbian feminism and continued to pin their hopes on the Left. She was aware that these ‘feminists’, who prioritised individual men over women and the men’s Left over the Women’s Movement, would misrepresent her and misquote her in order to discredit her criticisms. That as a result of her feminist speech she faced possible exclusion from her own movement. Morgan explained that ‘this is the first speech, talk, what-have-you, that I have ever written down and then read – it may be the last’.¹² We have access to this speech today because it couldn’t be wiped from the historical record as ‘one copy of this talk [was] lodged at the offices of The Lesbian Tide, another with sisters from Amazon Quarterly; and still another in a secret safe-deposit box’.¹³

Morgan spoke of how ‘the intense misogyny coming against lesbians from gay men drove many women out of the “gay liberation movement” and into the Women’s Movement’.¹⁴ Morgan told of how because of the misogyny on the Left she had written ‘Bye bye to All That” and she had said good bye ‘to the male left in 1970 – and thought [she] was done with it’.¹⁵ Morgan warned that ‘there is now upon us yet another massive wave of male interference, and it is coming, this time, from both gay men and their straight brothers. Boys will be boys… and boys will indulge in that little thing called male bonding – and all boys in patriarchal culture have more options and power than do any women’.¹⁶ She recognised that left wing men were as misogynistic as right wing men, that the oppression of women was a shared trait. She detected the misogyny in the male gay movement and asked of the Gay Liberation Front

are we to forgive and forget the Gay Activists Alliance dances only a few months ago (with, as usual, a token ten percent attendance by women), at which New York GAA showed stag movies of nude men raping women? Are we to forgive and forget the remark of gay leader and “martyr” Jim Fouratt, who told Susan Silverwoman, a founder of New York GLF, that she could not represent GLF at a press conference because she saw herself too much as a woman, as a Feminist? Are we to forgive the editors of the gay male issue of Motive magazine for deliberately setting women against women¹⁷

Heterosexual women were being pit against lesbians in the gay press as a form of divide and conquer.

Morgan then turned her attention to the topic tearing feminism apart from the inside and the one she knew she would be excluded over – transvestism and transsexualism. She criticised the self-elected leaders of the movement for demanding empathy and compassion for those who would oppress women or mock women’s oppressed status. Morgan challenged ‘are we, out of the compassion in which we have been positively forced to drown as women, are we yet again going to defend the male supremacist yes obscenity of male transvestism?’.¹⁸ She asked ‘How many of us will try to explain away – or permit into our organisations even, men who deliberately re-emphasise gender roles, and who parody female oppression and suffering as “camp”?’.¹⁹ Morgan was adamant that ‘No. I will not call a male “she”, thirty-two years of suffering in the androcentric society, and of surviving, have earned me the name “woman”.²⁰ She proclaimed that ‘No. In our mother’s names an in our own, we must not call him sister’.²¹ Morgan was critical of the women forcing males and male wants and desires on the Women’s Movement. She asserted that ‘this is the tradgedy. That the straight men, the gay men, the transvestite men, the male politics, the male styles, the male attitudes towards sexuality are being arrayed once more against us, and they are, in fact, making new headway this time, using women as their standard-bearers’.²² Indeed, ‘what but male style is happening when we accept the male transvestite who chooses to wear women’s dresses and make-up, but sneer at the female who is still forced to wear them for survival?’.²³ As Morgan predicted, she had upset the women who had brought the fox into the hen house and colluded with forcing other women to accept males in their definition and spaces. In June 1973 an article was published in the Lesbian Tide attacking Morgan and all women who did not accept males as women and as lesbians.²⁴ Nevertheless, many women appreciated Morgan’s speech and courage.

Nancy Robinson was one such woman. She described how ‘Robin Morgan set the stage in her keynote speech. She pointed out that it is vital that the movement begin to draw the line between the collaborators and the fighters. She stated that the enemy comes in all forms and that the most dangerous are our sisters who bargain for a piece of the pie while the rest of us starve’.²⁵ Women such as Robinson felt that there were other women using the energy of the Movement and women’s desires for change to build a platform for themselves ready to sell out for male politics and a male agenda. Robinson argued that it was ‘the opportunism of the Socialist Working Party and the entire male left’ which was causing this and cautioned that ‘women cannot afford to be puppets for the liberation of white male trade unionists, or to be pacified by promises of liberation through men’.²⁶ Sexism and the exploitation of women is something which unites men of all political stripes. We have seen the left promise then renegade on their commitment to women’s Suffrage leading to the emergence of the Suffragettes. In 1984 Audre Lorde warned us that ‘the master’s tools will never dismantle the master’s house’, more recently we have seen the male left embrace transsexualism/transgenderism as a means to ‘progressively argue’ that women’s oppression is natural and innate. Robinson echoed Morgan when she asserted that ‘we have no hope in a revolution that keeps us at least 20 paces behind our “class brothers”, Robinson felt ‘Morgan was right on target as she lashed out at the opportunists and the fools who have tried to co-opt our movement’.²⁷ Robinson spoke to women more broadly when she stated that  ‘we know from the times we’ve been arrested and brutalized by the police what the true position of women is in the eyes of the state. Most importantly, we know what it is like to be sold out by those who have supported us only with words’.²⁸ The inclusion of males who identified as females crystallised other complaints and for some women highlighted how men would always be prioritised by other women.

In a long, wallowing article one of the conference organisers responded, using the pressure they were under as a justification of the inclusion and platforming of a male at the lesbian conference. After pages of her struggles, Barbara McLean tried to address the issue. In a diary format she wrote ‘Who’s that on the mike?! OH GOD NO. I don’t believe it! This can’t be happening. This woman is insisting that Beth Elliott not be permitted to perform because Beth is a transsexual’.²⁹ Women/ a woman protesting the inclusion of a man in a lesbian feminist space were portrayed as the problem. McLean defended the conference organisers’ decision thus, ‘Beth was on the San Francisco steering committee for the conference, a part of the original group that gave birth to the idea last October in Sacramento. She’s written some far-out feminist songs. That’s why she’s here. No. We do not, cannot relate to her as a man. We have not known her as a man’.³⁰ Forced teaming had legitimised this man’s presence and allowed him to enlist women to fight his battles for him, to bully other women into accepting a man as a woman and a lesbian and in their spaces. McLean described the ensuing argument between women:

“He tried to rape me four years ago! He is not a woman! He is not a lesbian!”…”You’re wrong! She is a woman because she chooses to be a woman! What right do you have to define her sexuality?!”…”He has a prick. That makes him a man”‘…”That’s bullshit! Anatomy is NOT destiny!”.³¹

It is noteworthy that women supported a man accused of rape – just be nice didn’t extend to other women. The liberal feminist argument was already being made – that biological sex doesn’t determine who is a woman, an adult human female. McLean detailed how ‘Both sides are becoming violently angry’, quite a contrast to the men who claim to be transsexual’s argument that women have always accepted them.³² The presence of men in women’s spaces and on women’s platforms was, as always, to ‘be discussed in a workshop’, because women’s wants and rights are always to be up for negotiation.³³ Women had to self-exclude so a male could enjoy the previously lesbian feminist space. This led to a small bit of self-reflection by the conference organisers of what the inclusion of a male really meant.

McLean asked

Can it possibly be over with or has it just begun? Yes, we were aware of the anti-transsexual feelings within the movement. We were aware of the split in San Francisco D.O.B. over Beth. We thought that was over a long time ago. We thought it was just a ‘power struggle’ in S.F. D.O.B. What a bummer!³⁴

McLean attempted to dismiss the feelings that males – no matter how they dress or identify – should not be in the Women’s Movement by individualising it. That is what her ‘power struggle’ claim is doing. McLean recognised that she would have to convince other women to accept males as women (in the name of lesbianism and feminism no less), which is clear by the fact that she argued for it. If there was widespread acceptance there would be no need to make the argument.

Through forced teaming McLean was complicit in removing lesbian feminist spaces by inviting a man into them, changing them to mixed-sex. She had to defend Elliot in order to defend herself. McClean tried to use feminist arguments to justify the idea that sex-role stereotypes (gender) makes a man female if he desires it. She asserted ‘Do we or do we not believe that anatomy is destiny? Just WHERE do we draw the line? Do we refer to a transsexual as a man before the operation and a woman after? Is it the surgeon’s knife that makes the difference? I honestly don’t know’.³⁵ The ‘I honestly don’t know’ was cowardly. Women are not penis-less men, that is a misogynistic definition. McLean claimed that because she couldn’t work out if men are women she could not ‘oppress someone who just might be my sister. It’s the old innocent until proven guilty theory, I guess’.³⁶ No, men are not women until proven otherwise. Defending the inclusion of males as lesbians and feminists makes women contort logic, McLean then fell back on if butch women are included as lesbians and females then so should men be. McLean argued that if women opposed ‘transsexual’ inclusion because ‘they grew up with male privilege and continue to use it against women’ and if

the Gutter Dykes’ objection to transsexuals is that they have or had been socialized as men, male identified, and therefore oppressive to women. Well what about the dykes who have been socialized as men, either by their families or that portion of the gay community which has (and had exclusively) in the past emulated straight society and its sex-role stereotyping? What about the former, and current BUTCHES?³⁷

After making this ridiculous and frankly lesphobic statement, in a lesbian magazine, McLean then tried to cover her arse by stating ‘I don’t know. I’m still confused. Isn’t the reason for our movement that we believe we CAN change things? None of us had a feminist identity five years ago. I know that / have had to LEARN not to be oppressive to women’.³⁸ No, feminists never argued that humans can change sex.

Luckily there were women who were not so easily duped as McLean and had learnt not to oppress women by making them submit to male desires. Many women did not accept a man as a woman or lesbian and were affronted at Beth Elliott’s presence at the West Coast Conference. The Gutter Dykes recorded how Beth Elliott, ‘this… man, posing as a lesbian, caused an incredible amount of division at the Los Angeles Lesbian Conference in April of 1973’.³⁹ Elliott was positioned as ‘the Northern California representative for the Conference, so that lesbians seeking information or help concerning the Conference would have to go through him’.⁴⁰ Having to go through Elliott to criticise Elliott was a form of silencing and controlling women. It was reported that ‘when a lesbian called him up to ask him not to appear in Los Angeles since it was obvious he would drain time and energy, he called the district attorney to have her indicted by the Federal Government for conspiracy! This same blatant penisbrain (and prick-body) was defended at the Conference as a “right-on sister and feminist”.⁴¹ The lesbian group complained their concerns were passed over by about ‘the skillful manuvering of certain conference organizers’.⁴² They detailed how ‘we came because we wanted to be with lesbians. The fact is that some, real lesbians could not perform because of lack of time and space on the program — while this man was given support to sing his “lesbian” songs’.⁴³ In 1973 a man was a given women’s platform because some women wanted to appear cool, progressive, nice. As the Gutter Dykes pointed out ‘if even one woman had objected to his presence, it should have been enough to have him removed’ but ‘as always, a “struggling” man is given precedent over any lesbian. It is totally absurd that this is an issue’.⁴⁴ The conference organisers felt they were entitled to consent on all women’s behalf, that they were somehow more enlightened than other women. This was the true source of the conflict, not women who opposed men in female spaces.

This was highlighted by Su Negrin who wrote that the “disruption” occurred from elements in the audience when the situation could have been avoided had the organizers been less arrogant and more sensitive to the women who the conference had supposedly been organized for’.⁴⁵ The organisation of childcare and the presence of Elliot were the flashpoints of conflict. Negrin alleged that ‘in the case of “Beth” Elliot, I do not think it was negligence, but a deliberate arrogance that brought him to the conference. Women were viewed as divisive when we objected to having a man shoved down our throats at a lesbian conference’.⁴⁶ Not just any man, but one accused of rape. Still, even ‘for a lot of women who did not know the history behind this man, it was absurd and thoughtless for him to have been invited to perform at the conference; and it was a direct slap in the face to those lesbians who had supported his ouster from the Daughters of Bilitis’.⁴⁷ Women, their comfort, spaces and rights, had been given away so that a few other women could be performatively nice and progressive. With the idea that it was this era and the confrontation between transsexualism/transgenderism which birthed liberal feminism it is interesting to note that Negrin felt feminism for the inclusive organisers was merely performative. Negrin claimed that ‘the conference organizers’ line was “the show must go on,” which reeked of a straight media attitude towards “entertainment.” In fact, the emphasis on performance ran through the whole weekend. The conference leaflets announced that Robin Morgan and Kate Millet would be speaking, a deliberate use of “superstarism,” as if this is really what draws women to a conference’.⁴⁸ Performance over substance, the use of superstar names, the inclusion of males who claimed to be women all worked to make the conference a failed opportunity and source of anxiety and discomfort rather than lesbian or feminist strength.

The Gutter Dyke Collective interpreted that a clique, ‘the few powerful elite [women] successfully camouflaged the issues’ of the conference, and men in women’s spaces.⁴⁹ They alleged that

‘priorities were already determined by the conference organizers when they allowed Elliot (the man) to go on with his sing-song in spite of the protests of many lesbians. Their “entertainment hour” was more important than the political issues. (Yet, when an extremely political dyke-separatist band was making waves because they were given no time to play, they were reprimanded for being entertainment rather than being political!)’.⁵⁰

The goal posts changed depending on whether it was a man or many women making a request. Some women have always shifted and contorted to please men. The Gutter Dyke Collective continued pointing out ‘the naivete’ of the conference organizers’ which was ‘evident in the fact that they feel we can work with men to attain our “rights,” as well as seeking changes within this society to “reform” our situations’.⁵¹ This idea that if we just ask those that exploit and oppress us politely enough, show how reasonable and therefore deserving we are they may grant us some rights. This didn’t work for the vote, and the Gutter Dyke Collective stated clearly that ‘having so much trust in one’s oppressor is bound to get us crushed’.⁵² History proved them right.  The Gutter Dyke Collective proposed that ‘going to large conferences is like plopping your ass in front of the TV tube, sitting back, and absorbing “the pablum for the masses.” It’s all right if you want to be able to spit back the “correct line” but it avoids real interaction between people because it perpetuates our classist society by continuing to set up the articulate leader as separate from the people’.⁵³ These women felt spoken too and spoken for, told the correct thoughts by unelected leaders. There was an uneasiness that these unelected spokeswomen for lesbianism and women’s rights were willing to sell out women to progress themselves. The Gutter Dykes highlighted how ‘one lesbian particularly influential as a conference organizer has given an interview to “playboy” in which she speaks about the conference’.⁵⁴ Jeanne Cordova eventually rejected the proposition from Playboy, but it is clear the distrust had set in to the lesbian movement.⁵⁵ The presence of Elliott and the defence of including males in lesbianism and feminism had begun a wedge which would fracture the movement  and neuter the Second Wave by creating suspicion amongst women.

Another woman writing under the pseudonym Ann Forfreedom detailed how ‘my own life has not been the same since-and because of this Lesbian Conference…Major conflicts emerged over both the sexist implications of transsexualism and the feminist-political implications of “entertainment” or artistry.⁵⁶ The idea that women are defined by sex-role stereotypes and clothing choices (transsexual/transwoman) was recognised as sexist early on by feminists. The lesbian conference had received some protests from men but as Ann Forfreedom quipped, ‘though men attempted to disrupt the conference several times during the weekend, only one being-with-a-penis actually succeeded’.⁵⁷ She noted that ‘Elliott had allegedly ‘threatened to sue the conference planners for sexism if not allowed to appear’.⁵⁸ It seems Elliott recognised his sex when it suited him. Feminists organised a group session to discuss the sexism of transsexualism at the conference. Ann Forfreedom recalled how ‘During a general session on the last day of the conference, a sister spoke and said she had been planning to become a transsexual, female to male. But after being in a woman’s consciousness-raising group, she began to realize that she “didn’t have to be a man to be a human being”.⁵⁹ She had struck at the heart of the issue, that the sex-role stereotypes and sexual objectification denied women their humanity. The woman then ‘denounced transsexualism as both sexist and a rip-off’.⁶⁰ With almost prophetic insight, Ann Forfreedom ended her piece with the statement that ‘The debate will probably continue’.⁶¹ Indeed, we have seen women’s ‘no’ to the ideology and loss of their rights debated for 50 years.