I think you misunderstood my point there. ;)

I was speaking to your comment that it was incorrectly labeled a LGBTQ issue 
because of adoption. I did not mean to suggest no one is against surrogacy or 
that they are not promoting adoption as an alternative. I was indicating that 
to my knowledge those organizations are not telling non-LGBTQ people that the 
laws are not of interest to them because they can adopt. Looking at their 
sites, they seem to want all people (LGBTQ and non-LGBTQ) to see it as related 
to their lives and rights.

Again, I am not commenting here on if organizations should engage, just 
pointing out that regardless of someone’s stance on the issue or this action, 
the issue remains one of relevance to LGBTQ rights (and others) and WMIL 
labeling it as a LGBTQ rights issue was accurate. :)

-greg

_______________
Sent from my iPhone - a more detailed response may be sent later.

> On Jul 21, 2018, at 3:25 AM, Mario Gómez <mariogomw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> On Sat, Jul 21, 2018 at 2:56 AM, Gregory Varnum <gregory.var...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
>> As far as it being an alternative, that is usually true, but it is also
>> true for non-LGBTQ families and I am not aware of viable political
>> movements successfully suggesting non-LGBTQ families should not worry about
>> surrogacy laws as adoptions are an alternative option for them.
>> 
>> 
> Well, so you just met someone who suggests exactly that for non-LGBTQ
> families and who actively participates in campaigns against legalization of
> surrogacy in his country.
> 
> This is actually a position held by many organizations, just to name a few:
> the "National Network Against Wombs for Rent" and the  "We are not Pots"
> campaign in Spain or the "Mexican Feminists Against Wombs for Rent" in
> Mexico.
> 
> These positions are also held by some feminist authors such as Kajsa Ekis
> Ekman, Sylviane Agacinski or Silvia Federici.
> 
> My point is not trying to convince you of my position. I do not think this
> is the right forum to debate politics beyond WMF mission. My point is that
> if the WMF or its affiliates take such positions beyond its mission, it
> will be extremely damaging to the community, since this is just alienating
> to all members of the community whose political positions do not match
> exactly WMF's framework (heavily influenced by US narrow ideological
> spectrum).
> 
> I'm not asking for the WMF or its affiliates to be against surrogacy, just
> the same way I don't ask for them to condemn apartheid policies against
> Muslims in Israel or the genocide in Gaza. I'm just asking the WMF and its
> affiliates to acknowledge that we are a global and diverse community united
> for a mission, and that entering into political advocacy beyond its mission
> is detrimental to this global perspective and diversity.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Mario
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
<mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>

Reply via email to