GAL LECTURE 2- JULIE BINDEL- VIOLENCE AGAINST LESBIAN WOMEN

● In this text, the author discusses the issue of violence against women, particularly
against lesbians. The author shares their personal history of being outed as a lesbian
at a poor school in the North East of England when they were 15 years old. The
school was known for its poor attendance, bullying, and low academic performance,
making it an unsuitable place for formative education. The author explains that
anyone who challenges the norm is often seen as a slag or a lesbian, and they were
threatened with violence by boys and men who took offence at the fact that they were
not sexually available to them.

● The author argues that the law has become more complicated due to the social
response and political context. Lesbians have no legal protection, and they are often
punished outside of the criminal law, as there were no laws directly targeting lesbians
or other same-sex encounters between two women. This makes it easier for lesbians
to be fired from their jobs and even thrown out of their accommodation, including a
young women's hostel they stayed at with their girlfriend.

● Sexual harassment in public, including in pubs, was never actioned, which happened
to the author. Although violent attacks on lesbians because they were lesbians would
be potentially dealt with under existing criminal legislation, such as common assault,
actual bodily harm, and sexual assault, as soon as it was known, usually anti-lesbian
violence or provoked by the fact that they were out of visible lesbians. The police
rarely did a thing about this issue. One example is when the author was attacked
along with other lesbians in a mixed gay club in 1980 in Leeds. The author, 18 years
older than the author, moved to Leeds, got involved in feminism, and met other
lesbians. They were attacked by a group of fascists known as Combat 18, who
stormed the club and went for the lesbians, an easier target.

● The gay men got away with the attack, but several other women, including the
author, sustained serious injuries. The author was punched in the face, black eyes,
and a broken nose, and reported to the police. The police officer used exactly the
same words and delivery, which could have been victim blaming.

● The author questions what they expect from the police officer's words and actions,
and whether they should go to normal pubs and clubs like other girls. The text
concludes by asking the reader to consider whether they provoked the violence
against lesbians and whether they should continue to seek support from normal
venues.
● The feminist group that campaigned against violence against women and girls,
including rape, sexual assault, childhood sexual abuse, violence within heterosexual
relationships, domestic violence, and femicide, argued against the misogyny that
men could directly abuse women or learn from. They were also against the sex trade
and the killing of women and girls because they are women and girls.

● During a radio program interview, the host asked why feminists complain about men
hating them, and the speaker responded that it is not the case that gay men have it
 worse than lesbians. The host argued that gay men are often arrested for cottaging,
which is some of the public sex, usually in the old kind of old style, public toilets or
parks.

● The speaker then spoke to a radio host who suggested that it is not the case that gay
men have it worse than lesbians. Instead, they pointed out that women who had left
their husbands and formed relationships with other women were having to fight to
keep their children because they were disgruntled, often violent ex-male partners
were dragging them through the family court, saying she wasn't a fit mother. Judges
in the family courts would ask women about their sex life, asking if their children were
ever in the room when they had sex with other women. Many of these women,
including friends of hers, had children removed from men that could afford to drag
them through the courts.

● There has been some brilliant work on this issue, such as Lynn Hahn's study on this
topic. Many feminists have looked at the ways in which women lost children and were
punished de facto by the courts. In the 1920s, there was a debate in Parliament
regarding a criminal law Amendment Bill, which was being discussed as the law
shifted from issuing the death penalty to same-sex encounters. A Conservative MP
suggested three ways to deal with lesbians: the death sentence, looking up upon
them as lunatics, and leaving them entirely alone.

● This tactic was adopted in England for many 100 years, as there were about half a
dozen female husband prosecutions reported in the press in the 18th century.
Women of lower classes tended not to know about lesbianism, but the charges
tended to be fraud rather than a sexual offence, even when there was no financial
motive. At the end of the 18th century, an appeal was heard of a Scottish libel case,
which focused on allegations of lesbianism. The judge, Lord Meadowbank, stated
that the values, comforts, and freedom of domestic intercourse depended on the
purity of female manners and the habits of intercourse remaining free from suspicion.

● In conclusion, the feminist group campaigned against violence against women and
girls, focusing on the misogyny that men could learn from and exploit.
● The debate surrounding the criminalization of lesbianism began in the 1950s, with
some members of the House of Lords and Members of Parliament arguing against
criminalising it. This was due to the belief that lesbianism was a growing problem and
that it was publicly unspeakable. However, the Wolfingdon report on male
homosexuality dismissed the idea of sex between women as gross indecency
between women was never described or defined.

● The myth of Queen Victoria was also a factor in the lack of criminalization of
lesbianism. It was believed that the reason why lesbianism was never criminalised
was because she refused to accept that such a thing existed. However, this myth
was not true, as it was done and dusted up by men in the debating chamber.

● MPs and peers prioritised silencing lesbianism, as opposed to criminalising it. The
Member of Parliament that introduced the proposal said that lesbianism was a
growing problem, but one of the lawyers, a former director of public prosecution, said
 that introducing a law criminalising lesbian sex would make people who had not
dreamt of such a horror public. The bill failed despite the silencing, but lesbianism
has never been stigmatised. Silence does not mean toleration or acceptance; it
means erasure and invisibility.

● There could be no campaign run by lesbians and feminists to overturn criminal laws
against women in relationships with other women, because there were no laws to
overturn. There were implicit and explicit punishments, deterrence, and compulsory
heterosexuality, which still means forced marriage, coerced marriage punishment,
and rapes in some communities and countries.

● Lesbianism is the only sexual orientation that specifically excludes men from our
dating pool. It wasn't until the 1980s that lesbians were targeted alongside gay men
in a piece of legislation, the local government act known as Section 28. This
legislation forbade schools and statutory agencies from promoting any positive
representation of same-sex relationships in sex education. Many gay men fought
against Section 28, believing that being gay was innate and genetically driven.
However, lesbians did the opposite, saying they don't care why they're lesbians, love
it, and never look back.

● Many gay men became deeply offended and concerned about this, believing that
claiming that they are born that way protects them from conversion therapy. This is a
tactic because gay conversion therapists want to stop people from being gay or
lesbian, regardless of how they came to be gay or lesbian.

● There are many countries around the world that specifically criminalise lesbian sex,
with 67 currently criminalising gay male sex and 41 criminalising same-sex sexual
activities between women. These laws are usually written on the statute and do not
include those that de facto criminalise lesbianism or lesbian sexual encounters, such
as those operating under Sharia law.

● In Nigeria, Canoe State, an amendment to the Penal Code in 2000 and 1400
introduced a new offence of 14 years imprisonment for the crime of gross indecency
between women.
● The Islamic Penal Code in Yemen carries a penalty of 100 lashes or death for a
quarter-century conviction for premeditated sex between women. This punishment is
based on the belief that premeditation can lead to up to three years imprisonment.
The Equality Act of 2010 made discrimination against lesbians based on sexual
orientation unlawful, leading to formal legal equality. However, there is still a lack of
justice for gay men and heterosexuals.

● The plight of gay men in countries like Uganda and Uganda is often overlooked, with
queer bashing and queer bashing images implying men being assaulted by other
men. Lesbians are often invisible within this discourse. The assumption that things
have never been as bad for lesbians as for gay men is not accurate. In some
communities, it is easier for gay men to come out than for lesbians. Women are often
pushed into marriage with men, and punishment is raped and deterred from seeking
 relationships with women. This discrimination makes it harder for women to be out
and open and proud lesbians than it is for gay men.

SURROGACY

● The discussion revolves around the issue of surrogacy, which is often seen as a
workplace for the convenience and benefit of wealthy individuals, women's poor,
brown and black women's bodies, migrant women, and desperate women of all
stripes. The use of a woman's body as a workplace has become normalised through
the sex trade, leading to desensitisation and confusion with feminist campaigns for
safe and legal abortion.

● Surrogacy involves renting or borrowing another woman's womb to grow a foetus and
deliver a baby to a third party. The author argues that no one has the right to
surrogacy services, and that having a biological child or having a baby is a human
right. If this is assumed, it is a neoliberal concept that children and pregnancy should
never be commercialised, even in cases of altruistic surrogacy where cash changes
hands.

● The author challenges the myth that having a biological child is a right or that having
a baby is a human right. They argue that there is no right at all afforded to anyone to
use the body of another to grow a human being for the benefit of someone else,
including the mother. This includes using her own egg, whether fertilised by the
sperm of a commissioning parent, whether single, gay, male, or heterosexual.

● The author suggests that denying this right for gay men, single men, or straight men
who are not fertile can lead to further debates about the innate human right of
commissioning parents in surrogacy arrangements. However, the argument falls
down when it comes to the use of rent, room rental, or trafficking of resources to grow
a biological child.

● The author also addresses the issue of infertile women who have had multiple
rounds of IVF, miscarried several times, and are desperate to have a baby. They
have been wanting to be a mother since they were 7-8 years old and have always
wanted to be a mother.
● The author concludes by acknowledging that there are women who are infertile and
have experienced multiple rounds of IVF, miscarried, and are desperate to have a
baby. By acknowledging the importance of considering the rights of women in the
surrogacy industry, the debate can be moved forward.
● In this text, the author discusses the issue of commercial surrogacy and its impact on
women who cannot afford it. The author met a businessman in India in 2015 who
commissioned six surrogate women to grow babies for him using his sperm. These
women were illiterate and were monitored 24 hours a day by various surrogacy
agencies that made a significant profit from this practice.
●
● The author also mentions that these women were paid very little, but the clinicians
were making a fortune. One of the worst stories is that two of the women who gave
birth to his babies were paid extra to breastfeed because he couldn't get to them to
pick up the babies for a couple of days. The breast milk was shipped from Cambodia
from a breast milk farm for the convenience of wealthy American women or men like
him, who can't breastfeed while at work.

● The author emphasises that if we support commercial surrogacy or any kind of

arranged surrogacy for the desperately poor woman who can't seem to have her own
biological child, we must also support it for him, as once the commercial market gets
involved, all bets are off.

● The author then moves on to discuss the current push for legalising full commercial
surrogacy in the UK. Many lobbyists, apart from wealthy gay men who have had
children through this process but have had to use services in California, argue that it
would be easier to do so here in the UK because there wouldn't have to have
immigration advice involved to get the child over international borders.

● The author also discusses the travel and hotel expenses for women who give birth. In
the UK, women are only allowed up to £14,000 in expenses, which is a salary for
many women and an incentive rather than kindness and wanting to do something
nice for an infertile couple. However, when a woman gives birth, she has to sign a
parental order, which can change her mind later on down the line.

● The author also discusses the negative consequences of altruistic surrogacy, which
can be disastrous for women and their children. They have heard terrible stories
about the children of these arrangements further down the line.

● The author also discusses the potential for commercial surrogacy, where the richer
the person is, the more they can offer a woman to rent her womb. This could lead to
a situation similar to the Wild West, Ukraine, Georgia, Mexico, Brazil, New York City,
and elsewhere.

● In Scotland, the author notes that there is no such donation, as it is an extremely

arduous, painful, and often dangerous medical procedure to extract eggs from a
woman to be used as part of the embryo to implant into a surrogate.
● In conclusion, the author highlights the dangers of commercial surrogacy and the
need for a more ethical and compassionate approach to surrogacy. By addressing
the issues surrounding commercial surrogacy and the potential harm it can cause,
we can work towards a more equitable and compassionate society for all.