Minor campaigns

Sometimes I do minor freelance proofreading / shit-disturbing. Some recent examples:

1. Équiterre

Équiterre posted a job listing recently that failed to disclose up front (1) salary range and (2) remote / in-office expectations. I told them this is a bad look for a progressive org.

(1) Posting the salary range up front is important for accountability and fair pay, particularly in the non-profit sector where salaries are lower and a higher percentage of employees belong to historically underpaid demographics.

(2) It is a significant contractual issue how much time employees will be expected to donate to commuting to the office when they can do their work from home. An environmental organization in particular should be transparent about the carbon costs of the job.

Any employer that intends to treat its employees fairly should include this information upfront. A social justice organization should not have made this mistake in the first place.

Their entire response was that they transferred my email to human resources. They managed to get my name wrong in doing so.

2. Dropout TV

Dropout is an online streaming service with lots of unique nerdy / silly content.

Their recent “What’s on Dropout” ad bragged about their service in comparison to others (like Netflix): “no ads,” “no disappearing content,” and, at 2:28, “yes password sharing.”

Section 2.2 of Dropout’s Terms of Service begins: “You may not share your Account login or password with anyone.”

This is a pretty blatant legal fuckup. I asked them which is correct.

A couple emails and nearly a month later, I still don’t have an answer.

3. Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund

LEAF‘s latest newsletter contained the phrase “women and trans people” (version française: “Les femmes et les personnes trans”).

I have asked them to clarify if LEAF thinks trans women don’t count as women.

I honestly don’t know if it was unfortunate language or some sort of compromise for TERFs.

23 October 2024: I had a private comment that reminded me why I don’t like Wikipedia, so here is my own understanding of TERFs:

TERFs – trans-exclusionary radical feminists – are “radical feminists” who want to exclude trans people from the word “women.” Basically they seem to think their experience of womanhood is special and unique – sometimes it’s about the sacred mother, sometimes it’s about sexual violence – and they’re obsessed with excluding anyone who grew up under societally imposed male gender norms. This seems to be because they think anyone who was raised male benefitted from patriarchy, which is the enemy. Maybe they accept trans women in the broader fight against the patriarchy, maybe they don’t, but these “radical feminists” seem to want their higher status in the hierarchy preserved. It reminds me of early arguments against same-sex marriage, where some people would say lesbian and gay couples could have some lesser form of recognition, but “marriage” was their sacred straight experience.

I understand the trans woman response to TERFs to include that the experience of being raised male was generally miserable / dysphoric, and that being a woman cannot be reduced to just sex organs. Different people can (obviously, necessarily) have different experiences of being a woman. The category “woman” includes both trans women and cis women. This doesn’t detract from anyone else’s experience, it just means you have more sisters in the fight.

My feminism could maybe be described as radical, but I don’t agree with excluding people who are different from me. I think it’s important to focus on the real problem and punch *up*, which is not at trans people. TERFs represent, to me, another example of language and law being used to exclude people, so I’m hoping this was just awkward language on LEAF’s part.

24 October 2024:

LEAF: “I do not believe it was the intent for those identities to be read as mutually exclusive, but on the contrary to be inclusive of all transgender people regardless of their gender identities.”

Me: “Okay, thanks. It was a complicated sentence and I’m glad to hear the intent was to be more inclusive.

I would flag that particular wording for LEAF to consider avoiding in the future, though, since there is a school of feminism that uses it deliberately to exclude.”