On Fri, Jul 20, 2018 at 10:23 AM Shlomi Fish &lt;shlomif(a)shlomifish.org&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

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.

On Jul 21, 2018, at 1:51 AM, Mario Gómez &lt;mariogomwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)wikimedia.org.il&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:25 AM, Mario Gómez &lt;mariogomwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Varnum &lt;gregory.varnum(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

I see. Yes. Part of the LGBTQ collective considers surrogacy to be related to their rights. I completely acknowledge that. Best, Mario On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 4:01 AM, Gregory Varnum &lt;gregory.varnum(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > 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 &lt;mariogomwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Varnum < > gregory.varnum(a)gmail.com&gt; > > 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

Hi Fæ, On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 11:46 AM, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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". 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, Jul 21, 2018 at 1:41 PM, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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.

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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:26 PM, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Fæ &lt;faewik(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. 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