4 thoughts on “Guest Post: Beth Elliott’s Rebuttal of the Brennan-Hungerford Submission”

  1. Wow. I’m guessing that people don’t realize the significance of this response. In 1973, protest of Beth’s participation in the West Coast Lesbian Conference and of her work done with Daughters of Bilitis is sort of seen as the beginning of womyn-born-womyn -related exclusion. So there is a historic context, here.

    Beth, thank you for a thorough, detailed rebuttal. To me, there is a stark difference between the first essay’s hypothesized harm, and Beth’s inclusion here of several non-controversial, real-world resolutions.

    It should also be noted that the original Brennan-Hungerford letter has been picked up by a news aggregator based in Italy, IPS-Inter Press Service, which provides articles to news agencies in Europe, Africa, the Asia-Pacific and Latin America. So the reach of this letter has spread, and this response is both necessary and important.

    1. Well, it’s operative essentialism… I don’t know what further to add.

      It’s a detailed rebuttal in favour of a womonhood demarcated by scalpel and it’s frustrating to keep coming back to this.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s