This topic came to my attention through a blog post by Patti Wigington, although from the sounds of the controversy it has caused I am surprised I had not heard about it sooner. As Patti states,

In a nutshell, a ritual led by Z Budapest was billed as being open to “genetic women” only.

The problem with this is that it excludes transgender women. This is an interesting subject, though it can certainly be contentious. I personally support the freedom of people to choose whom they associate with, as well as whom they choose to teach, based on a criteria of their choosing. Let me address this in a more universal way, than I shall address it from a magickal standpoint specifically.

Please note before continuing: these are emotionally charged topics, ones that you may feel very strongly about. In the spirit of open dialogue, please actually read the article below, and consider my examples, rather than blindly attacking them. I allow for dissenting opinions, and even healthy debate, but I’m not going to stand for someone addressing the article without knowing what the article says. So my only rules are these; read the article, give it thoughtful consideration, and keep your language polite should you choose to comment.

So the first question being asked in regards to this is issue is this; is it wrong to direct a ritual at a particular group? The simple answer, IMO, is no, and I think this is best explained through examples. Let’s say that I wish to teach a class for new or expectant moms on how to nurse a baby. It would seem logical that this class is not directed at men. Would it be wrong for me exclude men from the class? Or what if I were an African American woman and wanted to have a gathering of other African American women to discuss the health, social and emotional issues that face them today? Wouldn’t an Asian woman inserting herself into the group be kinda like party crashing? Or what if a white man wanted to participate, and the group leader didn’t feel that was appropriate? Is that wrong?

This reminds me of the boycott of Chick-fil-A after the Winshape Foundation (a non profit organization founded by the same person who founded Chick-fil-A) refused to allow a homosexual couple into a heterosexual marriage camp. First of all, people blamed Chick-fil-A for the incident based on Chick-fil-A (a for-profit organization which serves people from all walks of life) and Winshape Foundation (a privately funded Christian based nonprofit organization) sharing a founder. Second, why should an organization be expected to accept people into classes, retreats, programs, etc, other than those that the program applies to? In this example, the program in question was a marriage retreat which seeks to strengthen and save “traditional” (aka heterosexual) marriages. If you don’t have a traditional marriage, that doesn’t apply to you… so why would you even want to be a part of it? I bring this up as some of the same arguments for this issue also apply in the Z Budapest incident described above. Here are the questions I have posed to the Chick-fil-A & Winshape Foundation detractors; Should persons who are not bulimic, and are not involved in trying to help a bulimic person in some way, be permitted to attend a retreat for bulimics? Should super skinny girls be allowed into “fat” camps? What about married people being at a singles camp? Should boys be in the girls’ locker room? What about housing communities which only allow people 55+ to be in residence? Movies that require you to be over 17?

The examples in the previous two paragraphs are different sides to the same coin. We regularly create special interests groups, clubs, retreats, camps, communities, etc. It is perfectly natural for people to want subgroups that they can identify with, this is a normal human response. The ability to create subgroups we can relate to in special ways not only serves logical purposes (as in the example of age restricted movies,) but is also one of the beauties of the human experience. Why does there need to be a constant attack on this basic, and instinctual, human act? Shouldn’t we be finding where we personally belong, or even creating such a place, rather than trying to interject ourselves into the sacred space of another group? Why should we think we have the right to impose ourselves on groups, teachers, organizations, and make them bend to our will and our vision rather than their own and that of their participants?

Why would you want to? Here is the biggest question that always comes to my mind when situations like this arise, why on earth would you want to force yourself in somewhere that you were not readily welcomed?? Think about when you were a kid. Let’s say your sister Sally-Lou-Who wanted to join your all-boys treehouse club. You say no, And Sally-Lou-Who runs off and tells Mom. In comes Mom, “Now you let your sister play” she admonishes you. “But Mom, she’s a girl!” is your retort. “I don’t care,” says Mom, “let her play anyway or there will be no clubhouse for anybody!” Who feels great in this situation? You, after being humiliated in front of your friends? Your friends, after having their all boys club ruined by the forced addition of a girl? Mom, knowing that she wrecked your fun and that Sally-Lou-Who isn’t really going to have much fun either? Sally, knowing that she is only there because Mom made you, not because she is wanted? That should be a real self esteem booster. No, everybody is unhappy now. Oh, but this will teach them to get along better in the long run! It will teach them acceptance! No, it will teach them that people will be unfairly forced into their lives, and they will likely do their best to guard against such things. It may result in them wanting more exclusion just to regain their power. The fluffy-bunny response that it is helpful to force people to act like they want others there doesn’t pan out in real life. In real life, it just creates more problems.

Socially, tolerance is not the same thing as acceptance. Tolerance denotes a “live and let live” attitude, acceptance denotes approval and validation. I think it is reasonable to expect tolerance, but it is unreasonable to demand acceptance. People should have the freedom to make their own choices. In order to do so we must have tolerance. But requiring acceptance actually strips the freedoms of one of the parties, because you are forcing people to approve of (and include in their lives) something against their will. That isn’t freedom at all! That isn’t respect! Not only are such things fake, they are themselves both intolerant and unaccepting… oh revel in the hypocrisy.

But what about magically? I think when you approach the Z Budapest exclusion magickally, the line in the sand is even easier to draw. When one is conducting a ritual, it is vital that the energies be right. If one is trying to raise purely feminine energy, it stands to reason that a strong masculine presence would be counter-productive. Is it possible that a transwoman would have a predominantly feminine energy? Absolutely. But, it is less likely. For those that can read, and/or sense, energies, you know that is easy to spot a transsexual by their energy most of the time. That isn’t to say that there is anything wrong with being transsexual, or that their identification with their chosen gender is to be questioned. That is a decision they need to make for themselves. But when you are dealing with magicks, only someone inexperienced or naive would tell you to allow energies into your ritual which counter the ritual you are performing.

The social bottom line. If you need to strip the rights and freedoms of others, and strong arm them into compliance with your viewpoint, you are not practicing tolerance yourself.

The magickal bottom line… Should Z Budapest exclude transwomen from an all-female ritual, from a magickal perspective? If allowing transwomen would compromise the ritual she was performing, and the energy she was attempting to raise, absolutely. She should not only be allowed to, her professional conscience should require it. In fact, she should also remove any “genetic women” whose energy is counter to the working as well. Anything less than that and she is doing a disservice to her participants.

~Anyanka

On September 11, 2001, and in the weeks following, I lost myself in the images of pain and suffering. For hours on end I would watch the news and special reports, wallowing in the travesties unfolding around me. Knowing how helpless I was in the response that took place, I felt I could at least help by honoring the moment, and feeling the pain. As an empath, I don’t know that this was the wisest thing to have done, but I did it none the less… sacrificing my energy on the altar of the collective.

Yesterday was the ten year anniversary of that fateful day. In the days and weeks leading up to it the television and internet were abuzz with memorials and specials on the tragedy. Over and over I was asked to make a choice as to whether to participate in the energy of that day once again, and even whether to go deeper into the tragedy that once tore my heart apart as they dissected the lives of victims and of their survivors. I did watch part of a special on children whose parents died in 9/11, read a couple “where I was” status messages, and passed a memorial flag on Facebook, but other than that I steered clear.

Does this mean that I no longer care about the men and women whose lives were claimed on that terrible day? Quite the contrary. But whereas a decade ago I felt that I could best help by lending my energy to the moment, by hoping and praying for peace and survival for those involved, I no longer feel the call to surrender to the chaos and distress in this moment in history. Rather than wallowing in the pain and suffering, I’d rather focus on the joy of the future. Not in spite of those that have fallen, but in honor of them. There is a tendency to look backward and feel the need to cry and suffer in order to honor people who have passed, especially when they passed in an unnatural and seemingly unnecessary way. But they don’t want your tears, they don’t want your pain, they don’t want your sadness. It doesn’t benefit loved ones, nor strangers. Although they arguably have their place, for the most part pain and suffering are negative energies. Do we honor the dead by perpetuating negativity? Do we honor the dead with our mourning? Or do we honor the dead by celebrating their life, and by celebrating our own? I think we honor them with joy, I think we honor them with love.

So please do not think me cold to have let 9/11 go by with nary a word. It did not pass through my life without impact. It did not pass through my life unnoticed. Rather, it made its mark… a mark that it took me 10 years to transform into something that resembles peace and hope… despite the tears in my eyes as I proof read this paragraph before hitting submit…

~Anyanka