From what I can see, [Peacewolf] has sad some hurtful things about various topics like Transgender people only having that label for the benefit, but her view is not an "abnormal" or "out of this world" opinion that's "inhuman". In fact, that viewpoint can logically be described as valid humanity.
The viewpoint of "transgender people only claim to be transgender because it brings them benefits" can logically be described as "transphobic". The phrase "valid humanity" is difficult to parse here: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not saying that it's "valid humanity" to deny that being trans is a legitimate identity, but it's very hard to read what you wrote any other way.
On the flip side, it can also be viewed as an attack on those that actually have had to hide in the closet like myself…
As someone who's felt like they had to "hide in the closet" for their own safety, would you feel perfectly comfortable at a convention run by, whose policies are set by, someone who believes that you're only claiming to be gay "for the benefit"? Is it the "benefit" of being gay that led you to stay in the closet? Now apply that to being trans in a period when laws are literally being written around the country to punish you for being out of the closet, and ask yourself whether you would really just look at this as something we can "agree to disagree" on.
It's very weird to couple this next bit from the article:
Having failed to find anything to verify independently or through the AWOO website who the leaders are…
With this later comment about "We Got This Covered":
...and quite a few editors I asked that work at various actual news agencies like CBS and the AP…
You're saying you took the time to ask editors who worked at various news agencies about their opinions on "We Got This Covered," but weren't able to verify anything about who runs AWOO? Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that means finding out who runs AWOO and FFA is comparatively difficult -- but if that's true, you should think long and hard about what that means. How many other conventions make it so difficult to figure out who's behind them? Is there a reason this one has been so secretive?
I was able to verify via a public statement made on both Telegram and Twitter last night that these people [sending violent threats] are not part of the organization…
Were you able to verify this, or are you just taking the public statement at its word? I'm going to have to assume the latter, since you've made it clear you haven't been able to verify anything about this convention.
AWOO remains firm that FFA will stand apolitical and not support any political candidates or topics. The trend from various cons over the past five to ten years has to been to trend towards being supportive of certain political topics or candidates.
What furry convention has ever officially supported a political candidate? For that matter, what "political topics" are we talking about here? The only thing I can think of are the anodyne statements in support of Black Lives Matter many conventions have released.
I have never found a group that's super upset about "how political furry fandom is getting" that's upset about "politics" in a nebulous, general way. This is never a conversation about how furries should just stop chattering on about tax policy or zoning restrictions. It's about specific "left-wing" topics -- social justice, diversity, trans rights, minority rights -- having risen to the forefront of sociopolitical awareness both in and out of furry.
To put that another way: if cons were coming out with statements in support of "Blue Lives Matter," liberal furries would be hopping mad, right? But they'd be calling it out explicitly with "we hate what that says about your politics," not "uwu stop putting your politics in our fandom." Every time this comes up, this is a repeated and consistent distinction: the people calling for less politics are, with very few exceptions, conservatives who feel that "social justice issues" are liberal attacks on them.
A GOH should - in my opinion - never be chosen based on their popularity and the number of people they will bring in, but rather be chosen for their deeds and personality and how they affect the people around them.
Many criticisms of FFA are almost certainly sparked by the perception that 2 the Ranting Gryphon was chosen for his deeds and personality and how he affects the people around him. He's been largely sidelined by other cons due to statements many furs have considered transphobic, racist, and consistently punching down. Even if you don't see choosing him as the inaugural GOH as a statement of agreement with his apparent politics/attitudes, it's hard not to see it as a statement of "we are choosing him to reject what we see as furry 'cancel culture.'" Either way, that is a political statement. Let's not pretend otherwise.
AWOO has a form to submit that looks similar to a background check form you may fill out for an employer. While I have never seen this, it does make me think about how much easier it'd be to hold people accountable for their actions if you have their real life names and addresses.
First, if this was a con that you perceived as one of the ones "supportive of certain political topics," would you think this was a good thing? I'm going to bet the answer is no. Why is it better now?
Second, remember how you can't "verify independently or through the AWOO website who the leaders are?" You can't even find their fan names. Doesn't this seem like they want to "hold people accountable for their actions," but don't want anyone to be able to hold them accountable for their actions?
So a few things that stand out to me here.
The viewpoint of "transgender people only claim to be transgender because it brings them benefits" can logically be described as "transphobic". The phrase "valid humanity" is difficult to parse here: I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming you're not saying that it's "valid humanity" to deny that being trans is a legitimate identity, but it's very hard to read what you wrote any other way.
As someone who's felt like they had to "hide in the closet" for their own safety, would you feel perfectly comfortable at a convention run by, whose policies are set by, someone who believes that you're only claiming to be gay "for the benefit"? Is it the "benefit" of being gay that led you to stay in the closet? Now apply that to being trans in a period when laws are literally being written around the country to punish you for being out of the closet, and ask yourself whether you would really just look at this as something we can "agree to disagree" on.
It's very weird to couple this next bit from the article:
With this later comment about "We Got This Covered":
You're saying you took the time to ask editors who worked at various news agencies about their opinions on "We Got This Covered," but weren't able to verify anything about who runs AWOO? Again, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume that means finding out who runs AWOO and FFA is comparatively difficult -- but if that's true, you should think long and hard about what that means. How many other conventions make it so difficult to figure out who's behind them? Is there a reason this one has been so secretive?
Were you able to verify this, or are you just taking the public statement at its word? I'm going to have to assume the latter, since you've made it clear you haven't been able to verify anything about this convention.
What furry convention has ever officially supported a political candidate? For that matter, what "political topics" are we talking about here? The only thing I can think of are the anodyne statements in support of Black Lives Matter many conventions have released.
I have never found a group that's super upset about "how political furry fandom is getting" that's upset about "politics" in a nebulous, general way. This is never a conversation about how furries should just stop chattering on about tax policy or zoning restrictions. It's about specific "left-wing" topics -- social justice, diversity, trans rights, minority rights -- having risen to the forefront of sociopolitical awareness both in and out of furry.
To put that another way: if cons were coming out with statements in support of "Blue Lives Matter," liberal furries would be hopping mad, right? But they'd be calling it out explicitly with "we hate what that says about your politics," not "uwu stop putting your politics in our fandom." Every time this comes up, this is a repeated and consistent distinction: the people calling for less politics are, with very few exceptions, conservatives who feel that "social justice issues" are liberal attacks on them.
Many criticisms of FFA are almost certainly sparked by the perception that 2 the Ranting Gryphon was chosen for his deeds and personality and how he affects the people around him. He's been largely sidelined by other cons due to statements many furs have considered transphobic, racist, and consistently punching down. Even if you don't see choosing him as the inaugural GOH as a statement of agreement with his apparent politics/attitudes, it's hard not to see it as a statement of "we are choosing him to reject what we see as furry 'cancel culture.'" Either way, that is a political statement. Let's not pretend otherwise.
First, if this was a con that you perceived as one of the ones "supportive of certain political topics," would you think this was a good thing? I'm going to bet the answer is no. Why is it better now?
Second, remember how you can't "verify independently or through the AWOO website who the leaders are?" You can't even find their fan names. Doesn't this seem like they want to "hold people accountable for their actions," but don't want anyone to be able to hold them accountable for their actions?
— Chipotle