Like this:

Scanning The Wild Hunt today, I saw a link to a blog post by Yeshe Rabbit, the founder and high priestess of CAYA coven. In the essay, she gives her perspective and personal experiences of the controversial Lilith Rite at PantheaCon 2011, presented by the Amazon Priestess Tribe, a sub-group of CAYA. I first responded to this incident, from the perspective of a priestess of Lilith, here. A follow up post can be found here.

Coming eight months after the incident itself (although a statement had been issued earlier), Rabbit’s post is rather long, as it details the parameters of her relationship with Z Budapest, the rationale of CAYA coven, P-Con itself, and the aftermath she experienced.

There definitely seems to be some distancing from Budapest’s hateful comments about transwomen in the comments section of my first blog response (which seem finally confirmed here as genuinely from her). Rabbit’s language around that, however, is a bit vague:

And into this, Z arrived, and she came swinging. While I honor Z’s many, many contributions to women’s culture and feminine spirituality, I cannot condone speech that is filled with hate, neither against me nor on my behalf. I would not and have not communicated my opinions in those terms. I respect Z’s right to hold whatever opinions, thoughts, and practices she chooses, and my expectation is that we are all given that freedom to do, think, speak, or feel as we choose. My reasons for creating specific sacred spaces are not merely rote from my Tradition; they are my own, and I believe each of us has the right to create our own sacred spaces as we wish.

While Rabbit says that she would not have used such hateful terms to share her opinion, she notably does NOT say that her opinion differs from Budapest’s own. And while all of us have the right to freely think and feel as we like, hateful speech against communities that already suffer violence and discrimination from the leader of another community that has also suffered is particularly disappointing. There seems to be more emphasis on religious freedom here than a recognition of a common enemy in those who would dictate and police gender norms.

Beyond this, there are a few things about this piece that caught my eye:

–The repeated use of the phrase “unbeknownst to us” to describe the events before, during, and after the P-Con ritual. It begins to sound like Rabbit believes they were set up, particularly in her comments that a protest about gendered space had already been planned. Sadly I don’t know enough about the event to confirm or deny that.

–The shying away from biological terms for female bodies in favor of the more amorphous term “yoni.” For example, “WE DO ASK THAT ALL PARTICIPANTS AT AMAZON RITUALS BE ABLE TO BE NAKED AND ALLOW THEIR YONIS TO BE PRESENT IN THE RITUAL SPACE.” My gender identity is relatively straightforward, and even I’m not sure I’d know how to “allow my yoni” to be present. What is this mysterious thing? A vagina? The spirit attached to one? Its innate power? Perhaps this is ignorance on my part, but I do find the reliance on this term to be purposefully vague here. It allows her to sidestep the pressing question of how “womanhood” is being defined.

–Stemming from the last statement, the requirement or importance of nudity for the rite in question seems rather unclear here as well. What does it mean that participants must “be able to be naked” while also saying, “We did not ask any woman to remove more clothing than she was comfortable with.” It seems like full nudity doesn’t matter. Does it? If so, why is the possibility important? The phrase “be able to be naked” begins to seem like it means “have what we would recognize as a woman’s body under those clothes.” If that’s what they mean, fine, but say it. Don’t dance around what you mean. This is what got them in trouble in the first place.

And that brings me to what I think is the most important point of response. Rabbit says this about writing the program description for the Rite:

When I was writing the proposal for PCon 2011 about the Rite of Lilith, I made a crucial error in not specifying that this was a nude ritual designed for women. Although I used the terms “Amazon” and “skyclad” in my description of the rite, I take full personal responsibility that these terms are not universally clear.

Many people reacting to this incident have downplayed it as an unfortunate misunderstanding caused by the omission of key details. However, Rabbit’s language here makes clear that this confusion was caused by an assumption about the meaning of the words she chose to use. In saying “Amazon” and “skyclad,” she mistook that these words are “not universally clear.” The assumption here is that these words specify ciswomen and their able-to-bleed bodies. By correcting herself and saying that she should have said “a nude ritual designed for women,” she almost makes it worse. It makes the same assumption as to who qualifies as “woman.” “Unbeknownst” to CAYA coven, a lot of people read themselves into that description who were not included in that definition. CAYA coven needs to recognize that their definition of that word is becoming less and less universal. And, if you think about it, isn’t fighting against a narrow definition of what makes one a “woman” what feminism is all about?

I have never disagreed with any group’s right to include or bar anyone from a ritual. However, if you want to do so, say so explicitly. Know that you do not hold sole rights of definition and identification surrounding certain terms. If you want a rite for only people capable of menstruating, say so. Don’t use vague, mysterious, pagan-y words as a cover.

Ironically, Rabbit mentions another P-Con ritual that barred anyone currently menstruating, saying that it was not protested despite what she sees as potential misogyny. However, comments from designers of that ritual in the comments section suggest that she’s gotten her facts wrong here (they’re worth a read to get a fuller story). This is doubly ironic, as most of her own post decries what she sees as misinformation about her own group’s ritual.

Finally, as I wrote in my initial blog response, groups need to be aware of the communities certain gods attract. Lilith calls to people in the Dianic tradition, transgender pagans, Satanists, magicians, witches, Jews, atheist radical feminists, and everyone in between. It bears repeating: in my years of experience as a priestess of Lilith, I know that those who transgress boundaries of gender to be beloved of her. What a shame to create a ritual at a large gathering that would exclude them. Despite my feelings, groups are certainly within their rights to hold exclusive rites for gods that fit their particular demographic. A large gathering where many of these people may be gathered seems to be a poor choice of venue.

Our gods and their communities are evolving. To assume that a skyclad Rite of Lilith for “Amazons” will automatically attract a narrowly defined set of people is naive and frankly outdated thinking. In many accounts, Amazons are known for slicing off a breast to better fit their war gear, an act that to some might make them transgender icons.