The Tolerance Project: A MFA

The Tolerance Project Archive homepage

The Tolerance Project Donors

Sandra Alland

Gary Barwin

Emily Beall

Joel Bettridge

Greg Betts

Christian Bök

Jules Boykoff

Di Brandt

Laynie Browne & Jacob Davidson

Kathy Caldwell

Angela Carr

Abigail Child

George Elliott Clarke

Stephen Collis

Jen Currin

Moyra Davey

Anonymous Donor

Thom Donovan

Sarah Dowling

Marcella Durand

Kate Eichhorn

Laura Elrick

Jennifer Firestone

Rob Fitterman

Jenna Freedman

Dina Georgis

Barbara Godard

Nada Gordon

Kate Greenstreet

Rob Halpern & Nonsite Collective

Lyn Hejinian

Susan Holbrook

Catherine Hunter

Jeff T. Johnson

Reena Katz

Bill Kennedy

Kevin Killian

Rachel Levitsky

Dana Teen Lomax

Dorothy Trujillo Lusk

Jill Magi

Nicole Markotic

Dawn Lundy Martin

Steve McCaffery

Erica Meiners

Heather Milne

K. Silem Mohammad

Anna Moschovakis

Erín Moure

Akilah Oliver

Jena Osman

Bob Perelman

Tim Peterson

Vanessa Place

Kristin Prevallet

Arlo Quint

Rob Read

Evelyn Reilly

Lisa Robertson

Kit Robinson

Kim Rosenfield

Paul Russell

Trish Salah

Jenny Sampirisi

Heidi Schaefer

Susan Schultz

Jordan Scott

Evie Shockley

Jason Simon

Cheryl Sourkes

Juliana Spahr

Christine Stewart

John Stout

Catriona Strang

Chris Stroffolino

Michelle Taransky

Anne Tardos

Sharon Thesen

Lola Lemire Tostevin

Aaron Tucker

Nicolas Veroli

Fred Wah

Betsy Warland

Darren Wershler

Rita Wong

Rachel Zolf

Office of Institutional Research

Communications & External Affairs

Trish Salah

Trish Salah This poetic trace was used in:
Poem 27:
I don’t get it I don’t get it I don’t get it I don’t get it

so, poems, hmmm. i dunno. i dunno about poems, hmmm.
but here a discourses, or bits thereof:

Namaste’s contention that the metaphorical inflation of the transgender figure works to render transsexuality and transgender lives as literally unthinkable is certainly correct in as much as it describes the institutional and social imaginary as it has been mobilized by bureaucrats, social service workers, the courts and other agents of the state who in some ways work to fix the boundaries of the real with the parameters of the state’s concern and purview. In these domains and others, the erasure of transsexual lives has been routinely effected. The recent (February 1, 2007) decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to refuse to hear the appeal of transsexual Kimberly Nixon, barred from training to be a support councilor at Vancouver Rape Relief, in 199? is certainly legible as one such instance. Nixon’s exclusion from Rape Relief’s program has been justified on many grounds, perhaps none more damaging than that which suggests that though she is now legally a woman, Rape Relief (and by extension, other small organizations)  is entitled to judge her as not a woman for their purposes. The implication is that Nixon, transsexuals, belong to a class of person that can be judged, by any normatively embodied subject,  insufficiently authentic in her/our being (women) as to justify our exclusion from social life or reality, which stands dangerously close to life, or reality, itself.   Rape relief’s criteria for judging Nixon is particularly noxious and ironic – it is on the basis of her having transitioned from male to female in her early thirties, and therefore lacking the experience of woman hood necessary to interact as a woman. That is to say, it is Nixon’s experience of difference within the category of woman, and exclusion, that justifies her exclusion, and negation. The irony is exacerbated when one considers the extent to which the honouring of experience as a ground for conscitization and political knowledge has been foundational to the second wave feminist project encapsulated in the phrase, the personal is political. The Supreme Court’s assessment of damages to VRR and requirement that Nixon pay their costs adds insult to injury and brings home a double movement within the law, wherein the Supreme Court colludes with Rape Relief’s contention that Nixon is a woman in name only, i.e. that actually inscribes her womanhood as a legal fiction, with out real weight in the social. 


Misprised, polemical and mistaken:
by trixxx3 
May 28 2009
12:31 PM
The idea that Pride Toronto has adopted a policy banning “groups advancing a political agenda” is as ludicrous as it is repulsive. Pride celebrations grew out of political marches and demonstrations— community-based responses to laws criminalizing homosexuality, transvestism, and sex work, as well as police brutality and societal homophobia. And they are certainly still mobilized by mainstream, “a-political” queers in the fight for marriage rights, and other forms of anti-discrimination work—the right for queer youth to bring same sex dates to prom, for instance.So the organizers of Toronto Pride don’t have a problem with politics at Pride, they are merely selective in what they count as “political.” Clearly advertising dollars are at stake, but also a certain amount of privilege, enough that organizers feel comfortable separating gay rights out from the human rights of (lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersex, transgender and transsexual) Palestinians living under occupation and Israeli Apartheid.So, I wonder, will Pride also be banning members of Helem, an organization of Lebanese Gays and Lesbians from participation in the Pride Parade? How about Salaam, the queer Muslim organization? Perhaps you should get rid of Blockorama and Funkasia as well, because, after all, Black and South Asian queer cultural celebrations might have something to do with politics as well? And what about that Dyke March? Wasn’t there a critique of commercialism and  sexism at the root of the march? Finally, you might want to cancel your readings and youth events, because the people participating in them might have something to say, and that wouldn’t be good…Or maybe queers of conscience should just boycott Toronto Pride this year. Trish Salah