Present: Lyman, Gail, Frances, Katie, Sophia, Jennifer, Mel. Names and pronouns were shared for the benefit of newcomers.
Before the meeting began, there was a brief discussion of Lyman and Gail’s plans for running a lecture series on trans issues next term, and it was suggested this could be implemented into Queer History Month.
Though the agenda stated that this meeting would cover Uni wide issues, Katie reports that Seb from OUSU has not yet had time to obtain information regarding changing university policy on sub fusc, so discussion this week will have to once again focus on Common Room motions.
Common Room Motions:
The possibility of opening this blog up to all editors, and that editors would post ‘attractive’ stories on here, and propagate the links on facebook. This was agreed upon, and Gail added additional editors to the blog.
Sophia came to the meeting to discuss the version of the main motion passed by Merton college, and why Merton made the changes to the motion that it did. The campaign discussed the problems that gendered dress codes have to people beyond trans people, and agreed emphatically that this is an issue that affects all kinds of people, and that this can be used as a point to make in future versions of Common Room motions.
However, Frances did make a comparision to the Think Outside The Box (CUSU) campaign, pointing out that they have a very limited focus and we should not stray too far, else we lose focus.
Frances asked whether the campaign felt that the proposed changes from “Male Welfare” and “Female Welfare” to “Welfare (Male)” and “Welfare (Female)”, with a clause urging Common Rooms to open all welfare positions to access by all students needing welfare, were acceptable. The campaign felt that these changes were acceptable, and there was a brief discussion on whether the (Male) and (Female) markers were needed at all.
Frances suggested that there be two reps, “broadly female-identified welfare rep” and “broadly male-identified welfare rep”, referred both as just “welfare rep”. Further discussion on how this would be implemented as a constitutional change. Jennifer did not agree, felt that this constitutional change would be far too difficult to implement and would be resisted by colleges. Katie believed that, on the whole, elections would not change and thus these would not be a problem.
Frances urged those present to read other the new draft motions during the week, so that she may propose them at the last JCR meeting of her college, which is the only one where she can make a constitutional change.
The next meeting was agreed to be held in a pub, as ‘little would get done anyway’ as 8th week is very busy for all involved.
Two new motions were discussed in this meeting, which was the first with the campaign being a campaign of the LGBTQ Campaign. The meeting began with the definition of “Safe Spaces”, a concept important in both motions discussed.
The first concerned male and female welfare reps, and ensuring that these positions of their equivalents have a mandate to provide support to all comers, regardless of their gender, so that those who may not fit into “male” or “female” have a welfare officer catering for them. Various comments were made concerning the motion, and it will be placed online for further consideration and editing.
The second motion concerned gendered events, and noted that the original JCR motion included on this website was not sufficient for stopping the exclusion of trans-identified or non gender-binary people. The motion accepted the need for safe spaces in gender-specific welfare events, but pointed out that gendered events outside welfare events can be done away with. Various comments were made concerning the motion, and it will be placed online for further consideration and editing.
Further campaign meetings will occur every week for the rest of turn. The current mailing list is being retired, in favour of using the LGBTQ-Campaign mailing list.
Hi! This is Gail, here to talk about what we’ve achieved so far in the campaign. We’ve had some great responses from JCRs who have passed the motion, as well as some interesting questions and issues along the way.
Now that we have an established sample motion, and it has been accepted by some colleges, we have to look towards getting the remaining colleges to pass a motion of support. This will provide us with a backbone of consensus which we will use to give us leverage when lobbying the university as a whole.
This is where you come in! Are you from a college that has not let passed a motion of support, but wish to support the Genderless Campaign? Anybody can support the campaign, and we would be more than willing to provide anybody performing this vital action with any information or help that they need.
The following colleges have already passed versions of the campaign’s motion:
3. St. John’s
7. St. Hugh’s
9. St. Catherine’s
10. Corpus Christi
We are also looking towards working closely with OUSU and really pushing forward the university-wide agenda this year. Watch this space.
Sorry it’s been a slow start to term. Things are slowly beginning to roll now, as we decide how to move forwards; if you want to be involved, either come to the Mitre on Sunday 6th November at 12 noon, or come to LGBTQ Campaign on Wednesday 9th November at 7pm. Currently, I’d advise you not to start putting forward any more JCR motions, or sending letters to Senior Tutors, as we are revising our strategy and the substance of them may well change in the coming weeks! Please come along; it would be wonderful to have some more support. ~Frances (OU LGTBQSoc Trans Rep)