Starting on Tuesday, February 28th from 5:30pm to 6:30pm and running bi-weekly until the end of March, the Women’s Issues Network is running Safe Space Discussion Groups focused on how individuals’ spirituality affects their lives. As the organizer of these groups, I am extremely excited to offer a space for both students and members of the larger community to talk about personal growth and spiritual exploration. By striving to offer a non-denominational and non-religiously-affiliated space, my goal is to foster an environment of self-reflection and learning from each others’ lived experiences.

From a personal vantage point, these discussions are important to me because of my own experiences with spirituality and faith. As a child of a multi-racial and multi-spiritual family, my journey of self-reflection has been both personal and community based, and I find strength in conversation and learning from others. I, along with facilitator Rev. Karen Low, hope to establish a group where people can feel comfortable talking about the role that spirituality plays in their lives, in whatever way it manifests itself.

Karen is an ordained minister inthe United Church of Canada and is the United Church Chaplain at UWO. In addition to her work at the University, she serves two congregations and is the Spiritual Director of Sabbath Place: A Centre for Spiritual Wellness & Exploration, here in London. She is expereinced in guided meditation, spiritual discussion groups and the facilitation of retreats and workshops. Both personally and academically egaged in an ongoing exploration of the human and the Divine, Karen is deeply committed to personal growth and the discovery of possibility …

While female-to-male transgender visibility has recently exploded in this country, conversations about trans issues in the lesbian community often run into resistance from the many queer women who view transitioning as a “trend” or as an anti-feminist act that taps into male privilege. Boy I Am is a feature-length documentary that begins to break down that barrier and promote dialogue about trans issues through a look at the experiences of three young transitioning FTMs in New York City–Nicco, Norie and Keegan–as they go through major junctures in their transitions, as well as through the voices of lesbians, activists and theorists who raise and address the questions that many people have but few openly discuss.

As one of the VDay Commissioners this year, I am incredibly upset and appalled to hear that at the presidential debate at Huron on February 9, two candidates promoted false and slandering information about the VDay Western campaign. It was asserted by Jon Silver that VDay does not allow men on their executive team. Logan Ross’s response to this was that this practice is unfair and discriminatory. Now, this would be an entirely reasonable discussion to have in a presidential debate, WERE IT TRUE.

In actuality, VDay Western has two male executives on our team this year, and has had men on the executive for many other years in our eleven year history on this campus. We also include men in the cast of two of our plays, provide men-only workshops (VMen, happening March 15), and donate to a community service, Changing Ways, which provides education and resources to men who are working to build healthy and safe romantic partnerships. VDay Western understands the importance of including men in the conversation surrounding violence against women and sexual violence of all kinds. We also already spend a lot of time combating stereotypes of feminists of being “anti-man” or “manhaters” and certainly don’t need the future leaders of our student council promoting such damaging stereotypes

Not only is it extremely concerning that Jon and Logan know so little about such a long-standing USC campaign, it is also worrying that Adam Fearnall and Claire McArthur did not a) recognize for themselves the mistake that was being made, or b) feel this mistake was important enough to correct. Frankly, I would be embarrassed if I was any one of them. The event of Thursday night exposes these candidates as having not done the research necessary to truly understand the Support Services and Campaigns offered for the student body they hope to lead!

Also extremely troubling is the USC’s practice of not allowing corrections to be made during public debates when the candidates get their facts wrong. I am personally confused as to how the USC can propose to run a transparent election campaign with a policy like this. Students and their allies (i.e., the current USC president and vice-presidents) need to be able to make potential voters aware that these candidates are misinformed and have not done their homework. Instead, I was told by one of the current representatives of the USC board that “We don’t make corrections during debates as we’re not supposed to publically call them out for making mistakes. In truth they do often get facts wrong”. I don’t know about the rest of the student population, but I certainly don’t feel confident in voting for any USC presidential candidate in this or future years’ elections knowing that their potential misunderstandings of student groups and services get held in such secrecy.

Adrienne Berchtold
VDay Western Commissioner

Vday Western presents MMRP and the Vagina Monolougues.

I shall endeavor to write this article without making it sound too much like a formal philosophy essay. This means I may not give as much support or background for the claims I will set forth. My goal is to make this article easy to read and understand, and even though those reading it may not necessarily agree with my arguments, I hope it at least serves to spark a further interest in philosophy and/or some key LGBTQ issues- particularly the issue of same-sex marriage. 

WIth that being said, let’s start with the basics. There are a variety of modes of reasoning that we, as human beings, use to think, rationalize, and form judgements on and about a variety of different issues. When it comes to practical reasoning, that is, reasoning about how we should act, one of the most widespread and accepted modes of reasoning is called “apodictic reasoning”. Apodictic reasoning, although originally a term in Aristotelian logic, has its origins in the thought of early modern philosophers, such as Descartes and Locke, whose views were more or less a response to the scientific revolution. Without going into too much detail, apodictic reasoning essentially follows the following format: you start with an incontestable claim/axiom as your starting point, make inferences from that starting point, and insofar as those inferences follow logically, whatever conclusions that are drawn from them will be incontestable as well. For example, if I start with the claim that all mammals are animals (starting point), infer that cats are mammals (inference), then the incontestable conclusion that would follow would be that all cats are animals. It’s fairly simple.

Noting that the persuasive force behind this apodictic mode of reasoning relies on the incontestable starting point/claim, we can see that this mode of reasoning works perfectly for many, if not all, scientific arguments, which are based on observation of the external world. Since we, as humans, all perceive the external world in a similar way, we can usually agree on these scientific claims concerning the nature of the external world, which, since they are indeed scientific, necessarily rely on observation. But what about claims that do not, and cannot, rely on observations of the external world, such as claims about morality, i.e. principles that we should rely on to guide our behaviour/actions? Usually these claims are much more controversial, and thus do not have as much persuasive force when the apodictic mode of reasoning is used to draw conclusions from them. For example, if I state that killing is wrong (starting point), and infer that eating meat requires one to kill an animal (whether or not they were the one that killed it) (inference), then eating meat is also wrong (conclusion). Here, the starting point is not incontestable- many may not agree that killing is wrong. Some may say that killing those who deserve it is right, some may say that only killing humans is wrong (exempting animals), and some may even be fine with the whole notion of killing.

This possibility of variance in opinion here fuels moral skepticism, which is an attitude that claims we can’t get at or agree on principles of morality due to the wide variety of beliefs that people have. This indeed seems true when considered in the context of apodictic reasoning, which itself relies on incontestable beliefs as its starting point. Thus, many philosophers have proposed that we use alternative modes of reasoning to think about morality. But the problem is that those who have not studied philosophy tend to rely on apodictic reasoning for most of their arguments, including arguments about science and morality. This is why it is always controversial to claim that something- be it an action, a policy, or a belief- is right or wrong, for as long as we rely on apodictic reasoning, it is going to difficult to find any common ground for which to base a sound argument on.

Of course, my response would be to suggest that people take philosophy so that they can learn about different modes of reasoning/logic or about different ways of grounding moral claims, but it is a fact that not everyone will do so. This is why reason  sometimes seems powerless in the face of moral disagreement, and that even if we use it correctly in our arguments, there will always be some people who are going to remain unconvinced by our claims. This is true for the claim that same-sex marriage should be legal, and even that it is NOT morally wrong/bad. This claim rests on the foundational belief in the equality of civil rights. However, we note that this claim in itself is not 100% accurate, as the complete equality of civil rights would cause some fairly significant problem and impose heavy burdens on society, such as making allowances for hate speech under freedom of expression. Therefore, we find ourselves more inclined to believe in the equality of civil rights subject to reasonable constraints. Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself recognizes this claim under Section 1: ”The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. This is what gives us the authority to condemn things like hate speech since even though it may be a civil right, it causes obvious harm to those whom it is directed toward as it is an expression of an intense emotion that does nothing except to vilify or detest people.

By adding this clause of reasonable constraints, the persuasive force behind the arguments based on this claim are somewhat undermined if we are to think in terms of strict apodictic reasoning. If we take a belief in equal civil rights subject to reasonable constraints as our foundational claim, there are going to be many objections and debate as to what constitutes a reasonable constraint in that case, which means that are starting point is, in essence, not incontestable. Therefore, arguments that rest on that claim are going to fuel much debate and controversy. Of course, we can still do our best to reason with and persuade people that certain things are right or wrong on the basis of this claim, or else we could never come to any sort of agreement in law or in simple conversations/arguments with others. Certainly, it is my view that, insofar as what qualifies as a reasonable constraint is constituted by the fact that something causes direct harm or imposes undue hardship on any member of a given society, same-sex marriage does not cause any such harm and nor does it impose any such hardship. Therefore, it should be granted and legalized not only in Canada (which it thankfully has), but also in all other countries whose constitutional beliefs rest upon this claim that equal civil rights subject to reasonable constraints (which thus includes the USA). Of course, this will seem (hopefully) obvious to many people reading this- my point in writing this article is just to point out why skepticism about the issue of same-sex marriage (and other constitutional, legal, and moral claims) exists and why it is more common than skepticism about scientific knowledge.

So the next time you get into an argument with somebody over same-sex marriage and it looks like the argument has indeed come to a standstill, one possible solution to that problem would be to suggest that your opponent take a philosophy class in logic or ethics, for as long as they base their argument in the common mode of apodictic reasoning, it is going to be quite difficult to persuade them to change their opinion… or perhaps that’s just my biased opinion as a philosophy major

While in the LGBT community the term “heteronormativity” is spoken often, we must remember that it is not a commonly used term in the workplace or classroom (unless you’re studying women’s studies or queer studies).  It is also not uncommon for you to hear aunts, cousins, or elderly people talking to young girls and teasingly asking “so, have you got a boyfriend yet?” and it’s often difficult in the workplace or classroom to speak up when someone says something about advertising to “women looking for a man” or things like that.

So what can we do in times these situations? Do we speak up and out ourselves in a potentially non-queer friendly environment, or do we stay quiet and allow the teacher to keep speaking about “traditional” heterosexual sex and relations?

It’s important to also remember that just because a teacher doesn’t know about heteronormativity that that doesn’t necessarily mean they are not queer friendly. I wrote a paper for an assignment that included the word heteronormativity as an example – and when I got the marked essay back the professor had written “Is this a word?” Many people are not regularly educated on queer issues or studies and terms that affect the queer community. It’s very possible that this idea had never been presented to my professor, and I have decided that it is an important role that I get to play in helping to develop someone’s education in LGBT issues.

When faced with a professor or employer that often uses heteronormative terms, ideas and examples if you feel that it is giving the topic a closed-minded approach, consider talking to them. You’d be surprised how many people hadn’t heard of the term, nor thought about the idea of including other sexual orientations in their language choice. Many people may not realize that by using heteronormative language, they are excluding a growing population of people and further encouraging the idea of “preferred sexual orientations.”

If you’re worried about a teacher grading you, or treating you unfairly based on your concerns – consider an anonymous letter dropped off at their office with a respectful definition of heteronormative language and its effects. If the problem seems to be a persistent one that cannot be solved by talking to them, try going higher and talking to their supervisor if you really think it is affecting the way you’re learning, or approaching a subject.

Inclusive and politically correct language is becoming more and more important in society, and we’ve already begun changing our word choices so that they’re gender neutral (actor/actress= actor, policeman=police officer, waiter/waitress=server, stewardess=flight attendant, and even manhole cover=maintenance hatch). It is not a far stretch to start trying to use orientation neutral language, and by educating others we are progressing society and the people around us to be aware of this issue.

John, like Steven, has also been happily married for over 10 years; however, John is unlike Steven in that he is fully committed in a monogamous relationship. Yet, there’s one other way Steven and John differ: Canadian Blood Services will accept a donation of Steven’s blood, yet, they’ll actively ban John from donating blood.

You see, despite John’s monogamy and marriage, he is married to another man. John is in the category of, what Canadian Blood Services calls, MSM (men who have sex with men). Currently, even healthy men, who’ve been in monogamous relationships with another male for years, are banned from donating blood to Canadian Blood Services. Although Steven and John are fictitious, this scenario is truth for all the Stevens and Johns in Canada.

Science, not pressure from gay lobby groups, should determine whether Canadians can give blood. At the least, healthy men who have sex with men, who practice monogamy, should be exempt from the blood ban, just as healthy heterosexual men and women in monogamous relationships are exempt from the ban. More importantly, all blood donations collected by CBS are tested for not only the HIV/AIDS virus, but Hepatitis B and C, syphilis, HTLV virus, West Nile virus, and more. This means that blood from all eligible Canadian donors should be collectible.

Now, in all this, what’s in it for you? Imagine a room filled with 100 Canadians; only 3.5 of those 100 Canadians are eligible to donate 1 unit of blood, each. This is a frightening figure if you or a loved one is ever involved in a medical crisis. Hospitals are always in shortage of blood supplies. Canadians need to somehow raise the number of eligible donors, while keeping potential HIV infections from blood donations at an absolute minimum.

From the views of CBS, their reasoning is sound in that they are merely banning a group (the MSM group) known to have the highest risk for new HIV/AIDS infections (as supported by public health data collected from Canadians).

However, an interesting trend is on the rise: new HIV diagnoses among women are increasing. Yet, CBS does not actively ban women from donating. CBS’s current donor screening methods discriminate against even healthy men in monogamous relationships with other men, this is discrimination based on sexuality, not sexual behaviour. All at the expense of blood donations that can save Canadian lives, during a time where we simply can’t afford to turn away eligible blood donors. We are denying hospitals clean, healthy blood.

All promiscuous donors with multiple sexual partners, whether they be straight, gay, bisexual, transgendered, etc., shouldn’t be allowed to donate blood, period. STDs don’t discriminate against sexuality: instead, they discriminate against dangerous sexual habits. Regardless of whether two penises are involved, or two vaginas, or a penis and a vagina, or some wicked multiple combination of the two, sexual habits determine HIV risks, not sexuality.

Keeping in mind that the number of Canadians who need blood donations show no signs of decreasing, we must increase the number of eligible donors, immediately. The best way to increase the number of eligible donors is to uplift the blood ban on men who have sex with men.

Fact: Every time you donate one unit of blood through Canadian Blood Services, you donate 450 mL (approximately the volume of a disposable, plastic water bottle). 2,000 units of blood are needed, daily, across Canadian hospitals. One unit of blood saves up to 3 Canadian lives.

Armed with these statistics, let’s revisit that room of 100 Canadians, where only 3.5 Canadians are each eligible to donate 1 unit of blood: convincing those 3.5 eligible blood donors to donate is a challenge in itself. But, let’s say we do find those 3.5 Canadians, and they decide to donate. Then, and only then, will hospitals receive their 3.5 units of blood. However, we’re still not out of the woods: on average, one hospital patient needs 4.6 blood units. This means that, even with the collective effort of 100 Canadians, a patient will still need 1.1 more blood units.

Donors are scarce in Canada.

Blood is scarce in Canada.

The purpose of this column is not to encourage you to picket Canadian Blood Services. By all means, if you’re an eligible donor, donate blood immediately, today. However, changes in CBS’s donor screening policies cannot happen without Canadians understanding that the ban on even healthy men who have sex with men is illogical.

Five years ago, my little sister was suffering excruciating stomach pains; she was rushed to the hospital and placed in urgent care. Within several hours, a senior surgeon was removing her close-to-rupturing appendix. Her successful appendectomy required 17 units of blood. That day, 17 Canadians unknowingly saved my sister’s life. Both she and I don’t care whether that blood came from men who have sex with women, or men who have sex with men, provided that the blood was both screened for HIV and deemed safe.

Disagreements with the opinions of this post are welcome. Comment freely.

Purpose and Objectives of Western’s Out in the Office:

• Work with London-based industry and community partners, Western faculty, staff and students, and LGBT professionals to offer a series of events for students from Western and London’s other educational institutions
• Provide educational seminars and workshops that relate to education and career exploration
• Promote embracing one’s authentic self by providing examples of individuals who have found success
• Allow students access to a network of LGBT professionals for possible mentorship and future career contacts
• Provide high school students an opportunity to visit Western and hear from staff, students and faculty about the programs at Western that promote a safe and inclusive environment

Schedule of Events:

Monday, January 30, 2012
4:30pm – 6:30pm
David SH. Chu International Student Centre LGBT Professionals Panel and Networking Event – A Career Week event, this panel will feature LGBT professionals who are “out” in the office and will allow you to learn about their career paths. Representatives from the business, law, education, medical and nonprofit sectors will be present to share their stories and take your questions. Stay after the panel to network with the panelists and many more community members who have found success in their career paths as their authentic selves.
Registration: Registration is open on Career Central (https://careercentral.uwo.ca/) – look for the events starting with “Career Week” to find this event.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
11:30am – 4:00pm
Western Student Services Building
Room 3130 High School Transition Conference
Students interested in pursuing post-secondary school have many questions and are often seeking guidance from both staff and current students to make this very important decision. Our transition conference will focus on topics like: Residence, A Panel with current Students and Student Services Professionals and a campus-wide Amazing Race activity to provide participants more exposure to campus and the services provided.

A resource package will be provided to each participant and will include information for both Western and Fanshawe College.

Invitations will be sent to local GSA Representatives and students must register no later than Thursday March 1st. The registration form will be available shortly. Please complete and email it to: lgloor@uwo.ca

Friday, March 23, 2012
Time TBA
USC Council Chambers Guest Speaker – Shaun Proulx
Television and podcast host, publisher, writer and speaker leading Law of Attraction workshops, Shaun Proulx heads Shaun Proulx Media, producing uplifting, leading-edge new media with a focus on personal alignment and empowerment for his core audience of gay men and the women who love them.

Stay tuned for more details and learn more about Shaun at http://shaunproulxmedia.com/
Date TBA
Time TBA
Location TBA Educational Session About Making Western a Safe and Inclusive Environment
This educational session is designed to bring awareness about sexual orientation and gender expression/identity. Topics also covered are discrimination, inclusivity, safe spaces, and diversity. More details to follow.

Date TBA
Time TBA
Location TBA “Out in Graduate School”
This session is targeted towards current and future graduate students and Postdoctoral Scholars. Topics of discussion will include the importance of being your authentic self, discrimination, inclusivity, and diversity in the post-undergraduate world.

The biggest thing I found myself discussing was the misunderstanding of feminism – many people believe that it’s an overarching concept, which is completely untrue. A few kinds of feminism include liberal feminism, radical feminism, socialist feminism, conservative feminism, and womyn who don’t identify with the word ‘feminist’ but believe in social equality. Feminism, like many other movements, is affected by race, class, gender, sexuality, and power structures in society. My opinions and experiences as a white, straight, upper-class, able, cis-gender womyn are entirely different than someone else’s. I personally am very passionate about womyn’s reproductive rights, slut-shaming and victim-blaming, and the perpetuation and normalization of gender roles in our society. I’m still young, my passions and viewpoints could no doubt change as I get older, but my point is, that’s my experience of feminism. The media portrays “feminists” or “feminism” as a collective whole that is exactly the same, and this opinion is often mirrored in society. It’s completely untrue, and it’s insulting that the feminist movement is labelled as such.

All of the men that I spoke with were very eager to engage in conversation and debate about various issues, and from what I was hearing, these aren’t conversations that men are usually encouraged to participate in or seek out. One man put the question to us, “Can men be feminists?” to which we agreed wholeheartedly. He said that question had been asked in a class and 10-15% of the students said no, for various reasons. ‘Womyn’s issues aren’t men’s issues’, ‘men cannot understand women’s issues properly because they haven’t experienced them’, ‘feminism is outdated anyways’ – these are answers that I’ve heard in my experiences, so I can speculate as to the tone of some of the students in that class. Another man expressed his dislike of anti-rape campaigns, explaining that they made him feel singled out for being male, while another said that his mother hated feminists because she had grown up with some who had told her being a stay-at-home mother was shameful.

These stories are important. These conversations are important. As a feminist, I really believe in the power of discourse. I do not represent feminist opinions; I am not the face of feminism. It is not a single person, a single voice. It is the voices of a multitude of womyn and men, and it is only by listening to each other and speaking with each other that we can make positive change. I want to personally thank every person who came to the booth this week, because I myself learned something through every conversation. If you engage with WIN, we are better able to provide services that reflect the needs of students on this campus.

If you’re interested in learning more about feminism, feel free to come visit the Centre (UCC 38), and come out to this awesome event on January 26th from 4:00-6:00 pm, where Michael Kaufman discusses his new book, The Guy’s Guide to Feminism. I’m personally very excited for this, and if there are any men out there who would like to hear feminism discussed from a male perspective, this will be a great event for you to attend.