Hi all, I'll ask forgiveness in advance for starting a probable flame.

I support WMIL stance: equity is absolutely within our Wikimedia values, and supporting LGBTQ rights is always a good thing.

But I cannot help but see the enormity of omission here: the Israeli government just passed a law proclaming Israel a "Jewish" nation-state¹, and it's bombing for the n-th time Gaza, where over 1 million people are sieged.

It saddens me a bit that WMIL is getting political, stepping "outside" our wiki box for a good but still controversial topic, with a minor impact, while major things are happening. Purely in terms of numbers the scale of the latter are huge: the scale of the first much smaller. I see a double standard (Jewish LGBQTs important; Arab-Israelis non important) which is directly against the equity we we're talking about in the first place.

Again, sorry, but I couldn't shut up this time.

Aubrey

¹ https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/19/world/middleeast/israel-law-jews-arabic.h...

On 7/21/18, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM Shlomi Fish shlomif@shlomifish.org wrote:

...

Hi Itzik,

I do not oppose the LGBT movement, but please explain how an official support of that falls under the global Wikimedia project's mission, and does not dilute our policy of avoiding having a stance on issues that are unrelated to it?

I mean... yeah.

As an LGBT Wikimedian I entirely support changing this law, and I can completely understand staff members wanting to take part in the demonstrations, and the organisation wanting to support them in doing that.

But I really don't see why Wikimedia Israel should formally involve itself in a general social-policy issue that's nothing specifically to do with our mission. We need to be careful not to try to be a general-purpose progressive movement.

Regards,

Chris

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

On Sun, 22 Jul 2018 17:40:49 -0400 Nathan nawrich@gmail.com wrote:

I think Andrea's post perfectly illustrates the risk to WMF and WM affiliates of embracing political positions outside the core mission of the projects. The number of worthy causes is near infinite; every time you endorse one you please some people and make many other people wonder why you considered other causes less important.

I agree. +1.

Taking off my “staff hat” and not weighing in on WMIL taking this stance, but did want to correct one claim and offer some context on this issue overall. :)

Having worked on LGBTQ issues most of my professional career, and being a gay man planning on having a child one day, I feel confident I can say surrogacy laws very much relate to LGBTQ rights (as well as others). I spent a fair amount of time working on the topic for LGBTQ organizations around the world. It is also an issue often intentionally used to target LGBTQ families (according to the laws’ authors). The issue came up just last year in the USA as an effort to “minimize the impact of same-gender marriage victories”. Incidentally some versions discussed in the US could have financially punished employers that treated LGBTQ employees with children the same as non-LGBTQ employees with children.

In short, adoption is not the only route and for some it is not a comfortable or sometimes viable option (for personal or sometimes complicated reasons). As such, surrogacy is indeed an option many LGBTQ families pursue. As far as it being an alternative, that is usually true, but it is also true for non-LGBTQ families and I am not aware of viable political movements successfully suggesting non-LGBTQ families should not worry about surrogacy laws as adoptions are an alternative option for them.

Regardless of how you feel about this particular action, I believe it is important we talk about it factually. WMIL’s claim that this issue has to do with LGBTQ rights is accurate - if we are to believe the claims of LGBTQ organizations around the world and lawmakers who over the years have sponsored the types of laws in question.

However, unless you are suggesting your opinion on the actual action WMIL took would have changed if they had instead talked about the audience you personally believe it impacts most - I am not sure how it relates or matters.

-greg

PS. For what it is worth, as a LGBTQ employee of the Wikimedia Foundation, I am proud and better able to focus on my work as I personally feel the Foundation has been supportive of its LGBTQ employees, direct volunteers, and recruits. Having worked elsewhere in jobs where that was not always the case, I am keenly aware of the impact a silent, unsupportive, or “tolerant” environment can have on productivity, morale, quality, retention, and recruiting efforts for both LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ people within the organization. I am also glad that at this moment the US government is not financially punishing the Foundation for employing me as I grow my family simply because I’m gay (or alternatively forcing the Foundation to make me pay more in taxes than my non-LGBTQ colleagues) - that has historically not always been the case, and may not always be the case in the future.

_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.

On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:

Hi,

"a legal change on that would have given the LGBT community the right to become parents"

If I read correctly, this is simply not true. It denied the right to use gestational surrogacy. They can adopt though.

Note that gestational surrogacy is not a simple issue and it is highly political. I'm sure many wikimedians oppose it, among which I include myself. Surrogacy has nothing to do with LGBT rights, and everything to do with exploitation of women, and more particularly, women of less advantaged social classes.

It is sad to see a Wikimedia chapter to take this official position. I hope WMF never follows these steps.

Best,

Mario

On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 9:57 AM, Itzik - Wikimedia Israel < itzik@wikimedia.org.il> wrote:

...

Hi,

A few days ago, the Israeli parliament, with the support of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, blocked a legal change on that would have given the LGBT community the right to become parents. The new law denies state-supported surrogacy to LGBT couples and single men.

In response, Israel’s LGBT Task Force called publicly for a strike on Sunday, "The LGBT community is calling upon you, the LGBT and community supporters, to join us in a one-day nationwide strike on Sunday, July 22, Tisha Be’av".

During the last few days, a huge list of big companies and organizations in Israel *publicized *their support and joined the strike by allowing their employees to take a paid day off work to join the nationwide protest.

This morning, the board of Wikimedia Israel, alongside with other organizations joined this call and published this announcement: https://www.facebook.com/WikimediaIL/posts/1716487061739276 https://twitter.com/WikimediaIL/status/1020214512392302592 https://www.facebook.com/WikimediaIL/posts/1716487061739276

*"Wikimedia Israel supports the just struggle for full equality, led by the Israeli LGTBQ community.*

*Equality to every woman and man, regardless of gender, sexual preference, religion, origin, or disability is a central value in the international Wikimedia Movement. *

*The current outcry for the right for parenthood, indiscriminate medical treatment, and protection against violent statements by public figures against the LGTBQ community, is a part of the grand and continuous struggle for full rights and legitimacy to the Israeli LGTBQ community, and we support them in their struggle."*

*Itzik Edri* Chairperson itzik@wikimedia.org.il +972-54-5878078 _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

---

Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I think you misunderstood my point there. ;)

I was speaking to your comment that it was incorrectly labeled a LGBTQ issue because of adoption. I did not mean to suggest no one is against surrogacy or that they are not promoting adoption as an alternative. I was indicating that to my knowledge those organizations are not telling non-LGBTQ people that the laws are not of interest to them because they can adopt. Looking at their sites, they seem to want all people (LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ) to see it as related to their lives and rights.

Again, I am not commenting here on if organizations should engage, just pointing out that regardless of someone’s stance on the issue or this action, the issue remains one of relevance to LGBTQ rights (and others) and WMIL labeling it as a LGBTQ rights issue was accurate. :)

-greg

_______________ Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.

On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:25 AM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Varnum gregory.varnum@gmail.com wrote:

...

As far as it being an alternative, that is usually true, but it is also true for non-LGBTQ families and I am not aware of viable political movements successfully suggesting non-LGBTQ families should not worry about surrogacy laws as adoptions are an alternative option for them.

Well, so you just met someone who suggests exactly that for non-LGBTQ families and who actively participates in campaigns against legalization of surrogacy in his country.

This is actually a position held by many organizations, just to name a few: the "National Network Against Wombs for Rent" and the "We are not Pots" campaign in Spain or the "Mexican Feminists Against Wombs for Rent" in Mexico.

These positions are also held by some feminist authors such as Kajsa Ekis Ekman, Sylviane Agacinski or Silvia Federici.

My point is not trying to convince you of my position. I do not think this is the right forum to debate politics beyond WMF mission. My point is that if the WMF or its affiliates take such positions beyond its mission, it will be extremely damaging to the community, since this is just alienating to all members of the community whose political positions do not match exactly WMF's framework (heavily influenced by US narrow ideological spectrum).

I'm not asking for the WMF or its affiliates to be against surrogacy, just the same way I don't ask for them to condemn apartheid policies against Muslims in Israel or the genocide in Gaza. I'm just asking the WMF and its affiliates to acknowledge that we are a global and diverse community united for a mission, and that entering into political advocacy beyond its mission is detrimental to this global perspective and diversity.

Best,

Mario _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

In Wikipedian fashion, let us stick to the published statement by Wikimedia Israel without making unnecessary inferences. WMIL made a positive statement to support equality, and we know that equality is repeated in the Wikimedia Values and echoed in the developing future strategy.[1][2]

The statement "Equality to every woman and man, regardless of gender, sexual preference, religion, origin, or disability is a central value in the international Wikimedia Movement" is not unreasonable. It is hard to imagine that anyone disagreeing with this principle would be able to personally support the current Wikimedia Values. It is also correct to say that affiliates like the WMIL chapter add value to the robustness and diversity of the global Wikimedia community by not simply cloning the WMF values and strategy, but as part of their reason to exist ensure that their programmes and strategies more directly reflect the needs of their own members and community.

If anyone wants to work on this in detail, especially if they believe that we can create and maintain an "inclusive culture"[1] and deliver on "cultivate an environment where anyone can contribute safely, free of harassment and prejudice"[2] while avoiding making positive statements about equality, and choosing to stay silent about groups including LGBT+ groups that suffer prejudice and discrimination by their state because some may see that as unnecessarily political, then I encourage them to talk this through by using logical and civil discourse either during the current WMF driven strategy development process or in consultation with local affiliate organizations.[3] Though Wikimedia projects are not a free soapbox, our values guarantee that critical voices are not silenced and rational on-topic discussion is always welcome.

1. https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Values#We_welcome_and_cherish_our_diff... 2. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Direction#O... 3. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy

Cheers, Fae

I understood the point you were making.

However if we agree on full equality, then please recognise that when a state allows surrogacy for heterosexual couples but makes it unlawful for same sex couples, this is anti-LGBT discrimination.

If you want to complain about surrogacy in Israel because you believe all surrogacy exploits women, perhaps you would benefit from contacting lobby groups in Israel who aim to make all surrogacy illegal. There are plenty of statements on record from women who happily volunteer to be surrogates and the law in Israel is well defined, has been around for two decades, ensures that the surrogate mother fully understands what they are doing, and the assessment board always includes a professional social worker.[1]

However when you choose to derail a discussion that is no more and no less than same sex couples being treated equally and being given equal access for parental rights and medical support, then your actions will be read as supporting the use of the law as a weapon for anti-LGBT discrimination. Saying you support LGBT rights, or that you are LGBT+ yourself, does not change the way your words affect the rest of us.

Links 1. https://www.health.gov.il/English/Topics/fertility/Surrogacy/Pages/default.a...

Thanks, Fae -- faewik@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_LGBT+

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 11:18, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:

Hi Fæ,

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

In Wikipedian fashion, let us stick to the published statement by Wikimedia Israel without making unnecessary inferences.

That is what I do as a Wikipedia editor. But I don't find it reasonable when it comes to WMF and affiliates activities. This would effectively mean "stick to what WMF and affiliate says and don't complain".

...

WMIL made a positive statement to support equality, and we know that equality is repeated in the Wikimedia Values and echoed in the developing future strategy

It is probable obvious from my previous emails, but I don't agree with this framing of the issue. Taking surrogacy as simple issue of equality is missing most of the debate about it.

My fellow colleages against surrogacy include a majority of women (including L*BT) and a quite a few men too (including *GBT). I assure you that for us, surrogacy is a form of exploitation of women, primarily women of lower social classes and specially from less-developed countries. Following the the trend of simplifying things to fit the Wikimedia Values, I would say that, in order to promote equality, we should support all women rights. And in doing so, in case of conflict, we should prioritize the right to live, and live free of violence and exploitation. Hence, the WMF should be clearly positioned against surrogacy regardless of who the intended parents are. But no, I'm not proposing this, because of the reasons in my previous emails.

And yes, just in case you were wondering, I strongly support the movement for LGBT rights, but I don't think this is a simple case of LGBT _rights_ and it also involves women rights, which are largely ignored.

Best,

Mario

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 13:12, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

However when you choose to derail a discussion that is no more and no less than same sex couples being treated equally and being given equal access for parental rights and medical support, then your actions will be read as supporting the use of the law as a weapon for anti-LGBT discrimination. Saying you support LGBT rights, or that you are LGBT+ yourself, does not change the way your words affect the rest of us.

Yes, it is not the first point that I read this "you look anti-LGBT". It will probably be the case for some people. I could say that proponents of these positions _look like_ rich white people, predominantly male, who are classist and anti-women right. Is that characterization fair? I don't think so, but it might look like it for some people.

No it is not "fair", it is a way of dismissing equality for LGBT+ people by parodying and stereotyping all of us with views in this area as rich white men. That is wrapping distasteful bigoted views in soft words.

By saying these offensive things you have made this discussion a lot easier, as your complaint is based on prejudice and assumptions rather than facts, evidence or logic. Thanks for making that clear.

Again I recommend you take your lobbying to another place where others can keep asking you for evidence, reliable sources and the format may help you stick to rational discussion.

I don't think this kind of dispute can be resolved within the Wikimedia community. Doing so would push people on the "losing" position to just leave the community and let it be as ideologically homogeneous as the WMF and the winning side of the community wants it to be. I find increasingly worrying that this seems the path we're following very happily.

Best,

Mario _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

Fae

Let's be clear.

The anti-surrogacy movement may not be anti-LGBT, I basically said that in my previous email. If you want to lobby against surrogacy, there is no problem with doing so in the right forum, and as all legal surrogacies over the last 22 years in Israel have been *100% for heterosexual couples* as enshrined in the wording of the 1996 act, you should be lobbying against that existing act, which by definition has involved not one single same sex couple, so the only legal surrogacy cases you can possibly discuss and lobby against have nothing to do with LGBT+ parental rights or access.

Your actions hijacking a statement by WMIL for LGBT+ equality, are anti-LGBT+ as was your nasty stereotype of those that dare to speak openly about LGBT+ equality as being right-wing supporting rich white men.

This same stereotype has been used against LGBT+ rights discussion my entire life, long before #fakenews was invented. It is untrue, insidious, offensive, closes down civil discussion and deliberately marginalising. I have no doubt that your purpose in being here is not to help our open knowledge movement but to use any convenient soapbox to be offensive and disruptive.

Fae

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 13:29, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

On Sat, 21 Jul 2018 at 13:12, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:

No it is not "fair", it is a way of dismissing equality for LGBT+ people by parodying and stereotyping all of us with views in this area as rich white men. That is wrapping distasteful bigoted views in soft words.

Of course it is not fair. I agree, that's what I said. My point is that it is as unfair as stereotyping anti-surrogacy movement as anti-LGBT.

Best,

Mario _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe

I don't want to engage in endless political flamewars, so this is my last email on this list discussing the political substance of surrogacy, I could, and I could do it with reliable sources, which were not asked in the first place to justify WMIL statement.

But I don't meant to lobby here, because that's exactly what I'm opposing: using the WMF and affiliates to lobby for political positions beyond its mission.

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 3:00 PM, Mario Gómez mariogomwiki@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Fæ faewik@gmail.com wrote:

...

The anti-surrogacy movement may not be anti-LGBT, I basically said that in my previous email. If you want to lobby against surrogacy, there is no problem with doing so in the right forum, and as all legal surrogacies over the last 22 years in Israel have been *100% for heterosexual couples* as enshrined in the wording of the 1996 act, you should be lobbying against that existing act, which by definition has involved not one single same sex couple, so the only legal surrogacy cases you can possibly discuss and lobby against have nothing to do with LGBT+ parental rights or access.

As I said, I'm opposed to surrogacy regardless of gender of intended parents. I'm against legalization of surrogacy, as well as any law expanding it. This is consequential with the position of considering surrogacy as exploitation. I understand you do not share this position, but for those of us who do, what you call non-discrimination, is simply expanding the population who can exercise a form of human exploitation.

I don't ask you to share my views on surrogacy, and I don't want WMF to take sides with mine either. I think I have been clear about this from the start. It was never my intention to speak up against surrogacy in any Wikimedia venue. But I was not the one who officially brought up the topic, so I think it is completely reasonable to debate political matters that are brought up by WMF or its affiliates.

...

Your actions hijacking a statement by WMIL for LGBT+ equality, are anti-LGBT+ as was your nasty stereotype of those that dare to speak openly about LGBT+ equality as being right-wing supporting rich white men.

...

This same stereotype has been used against LGBT+ rights discussion my entire life, long before #fakenews was invented. It is untrue, insidious, offensive, closes down civil discussion and deliberately marginalising. I have no doubt that your purpose in being here is not to help our open knowledge movement but to use any convenient soapbox to be offensive and disruptive.

I'm really sorry I offended you with this example. I'm completely aware that this stereotype is used that way, and that's why I compare it to an equally insidious stereotype that is used against some people defending women rights. In retrospective, it was not a good way to make my point, since by no means I want to imply what you interpreted from my words.

Best,

Mario