Julie Bindel, new book - feminism for women, the route to freedom. Interviewed by Emma Barnett on women’s hour today

So that's a Stonewall thing, then?

They threaten to remove their Diversity Champions badge from anyone who doesn't adhere to their 'No Debate' agenda.

In answer to the questions about talks on any subject but trans rights, if someone goes to a talk about abortion, or about any subject with which they have a strong opinion or personal connection, they have to expect that they might feel 'triggered' by what they hear.

A university is a place of education. If a talk about termination of pregnancy is part of a course of study, then students need to attend and understand the issues (in various ways and to various levels depending on the subject of their degree). If the talk is some sort of general debate, then consent to listen to the views expressed is given when you sign up.

If an abortion were part of a film on a film studies course, or if a literature course had a graphic description of a termination in a poem or novel, or a journalism course was looking at propaganda or balanced journalism and showed a series of photos of aborted babies, then a trigger warning would be given at the start of the lecture, or on its advertising material or module handbook, and students could make a choice about whether or not to attend, unless their professional body insisted that all aspects of the subject being studied were attended and passed.

The idea that students are delicate flowers who are protected by the university as though they were in primary school is simply not true, although it may seem so from hearing things such as trisher posted above.

Well as a woman I would assume extra security meant threat of violence so yeah I would have opted out of that one.

Doodledog I think the recent incident with Durham university illustrates how universities feel about protecting students. She claims she was "No platformed". What actually happened was a sort of invitation was not followed up, when JB contacted the university and was included in the event she was sent a list of conditions she felt she couldn't comply with. Those conditions were to protect students Here they are
In order to be allowed to attend the debate, which, as I have explained, is an unpaid gig, speakers were required to sign up to the ‘Durham University Respect and Inclusivity Agreement’; accept that extra security measures would be in place; accept that the Union Society President would make contact with the student union Trans Society in advance of the meeting to listen to any ‘concerns’; and accept that a senior member of the EDI (Equality, Diversity and Inclusion) team would attend the event as an impartial observer on behalf of the University.

Yes we know all that. But the woman with downs syndrome may very well find discussion of abortion due to disability very triggering, should those in favour of maintaining current abortion law be banned from speaking because the subject may cause people distress. And the issue of disability is raised in pretty much every debate on abortion I have ever heard. If you decide that offense is the criteria for banning then you cant just say her offense doesn't count because you dont agree with her.

Some people at university are more vulnerable, but so are some people everywhere.

Do you have an example of when a university has used its safeguarding regulations to stop someone speaking in case they are found to be distasteful or threatening, or are you referring to something instigated by Stonewall threatening to remove its endorsement?

Rosie51 if you don't understand that some people at a university are more vulnerable there is nothing I can do about that.
I didn't say mention Down's syndrome or why anyone aborts a foetus. I said no pro abortion people advocate abortion simply on the grounds the baby isn't perfect. If the woman chooses not to give birth to a child she doesn't want whatever the reason it is her decision. Medical staff give her the knowledge but it is her choice. Just as it is the woman's choice to abort a perfect foetus she doesn't want.

I've just seen Iam64 mentions the historical "men in frocks" in her OP.

Of course it's important that all views are voiced and heard, even if they are difficult for some people listen to. If we don't confront ideas that are different from ours we will never have a chance to change our minds, and in many cases never have a chance to form an opinion in the first place.

I'm still interested to know when you have seen a University ban someone for speaking about something that others might find 'distasteful' or 'threatening', though. I have never seen regulations used to protect vulnerable students from hearing things that might upset them, and would very much like to see an example of when this has happened.

I have heard of people being no-platformed because Stonewall threatened to remove their Diversity Champions kitemark if a speaker was allowed to talk about gender critical issues, if that's what you mean, but as you know, that was nothing to do with vulnerable students, it was to do with their 'No Debate' platform.

trisher

I don't know f any pro bortion person who advocates aborting baby because it is imperfect Rosie51 most would only see such an action as appropriate if there was medical advice to do so.
Anyway what's this got to do with Julie Bindel? It is such a pity her views on transpeople and bi sexual women have limited her public speaking I fully agree. But it isn't their fault she used unacceptable terms.
I will repeat outside of universities and other places of education free speech is completely to be supported.

I don't understand your first sentence. Why do people abort a baby with Down syndrome if not because they aren't perfect? There's no increased medical risk to the mother from such a pregnancy and these days people with Down syndrome can expect to live a near normal lifespan, so no medical risk there either.
What unacceptable terms did Julie Bindel use recently? I know historically she spoke of "men in dresses" for which she has apologised and said it was childish wording. I still cannot understand why you think anybody outside of a university setting can be subject to free speech, but some free speech is to be suppressed within the hallowed walls. Do the students never leave the confines and find themselves in the real world where they may encounter free speech, some of which may be offensive to them? Why this special protection for just one cohort of the population?

Because it's to do with the issue of speech and who decides what is acceptable. There is a whole debate about the issues around abortion and down syndrome at the moment led by a woman/girl (not sure of her age) with down syndrome, she obviously finds the abortion laws relating to disability very upsetting and offensive, the question rosie asked is actually quite important.

I don't know f any pro bortion person who advocates aborting baby because it is imperfect Rosie51 most would only see such an action as appropriate if there was medical advice to do so.
Anyway what's this got to do with Julie Bindel? It is such a pity her views on transpeople and bi sexual women have limited her public speaking I fully agree. But it isn't their fault she used unacceptable terms.
I will repeat outside of universities and other places of education free speech is completely to be supported.

Are we still talking about speakers in universities?

That's what I was asking about, when I asked my question, trisher. Have you seen a speaker somehow 'disallowed' for contravening regulations that said women should not be blamed or humiliated?

Under what circumstances would an anti-abortionist speak in a University? I can see it happening in a debating society, but I can't imagine one being invited to address the student body at large.

If we're going into the abortion arena, couldn't somebody with a disability... Down syndrome, or spina bifida feel threatened and hugely distressed by a pro abortion speaker who advocated for the right to terminate imperfect babies? I'm very much pro choice but I can imagine it could make someone feel like they shouldn't exist. I don't however think that's a valid reason to no platform such a speaker.

I think outside an abortion clinic is a very different scenario to a debate on abortion rights.
I find a thousand things offensive, I dont think people shouldn't be allowed to speak about them.

Doodledog I've seen outside women's clinics and met some pretty agressive anti-abortionists who intimidated women, called them baby murderers, told them they would go to hell and otherwise abused them.

Hasn't she admitted to using such unacceptable language? Didn't she apologise?
Anyway I've read some of the comments demanding she be no-platformed and it is interesting. It isn't just a trans issue. She has upset bi-sexual women who find her views offensive.

Galaxy it would depend on the approach taken by the anti abortionist. If it was felt by some women that they were being blamed or humiliated by such a speaker then the regulations would be breached.

Have you seen this in action in the way you describe it, or is this simply your interpretation of something you've read online?

it would depend on the approach taken by the anti abortionist. If it was felt by some women that they were being blamed or humiliated by such a speaker then the regulations would be breached.

Wouldn't they need to hear the speaker to know if that was the case?

What 'hatred & abuse' did you mean, in relation to trans people?
Have you heard any hatred or abuse of trans people from Julie Bindel, the subject of this thread?

By "for any reason" Rosie51 I meant reasons other than gender issues. They would of course need to be reasons which resulted in anyone feeling harassed. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear.

Galaxy it would depend on the approach taken by the anti abortionist. If it was felt by some women that they were being blamed or humiliated by such a speaker then the regulations would be breached.

So what you are saying Doodledog is that universities allow anyone to speak -isn't that challenging the no platforming question then?
No, that's not what I'm saying. You can read my post upthread.

trisher

So what you are saying Doodledog is that universities allow anyone to speak -isn't that challenging the no platforming question then?
We were by the way discussing external speakers I thought and not university courses.
Here's the relevant section from Cambridge's general discipline regulations
 
No member of the University shall engage in harassment in the course of an academic, sporting, social, cultural, or other activity either within the Precincts of the University or elsewhere in the context of her or his membership of the ^University or in circumstances where the victim of the harassment is a member, officer, or employee of the University or a College. Harassment shall include single or repeated incidents involving unwanted and unwarranted conduct towards another person which is reasonably likely to have the effect of (i) violating that other’s dignity or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that other^

That wouldn't seem to tie up with your earlier statement Anyone who is seen as promoting views which might be found distateful or threatening by members of the university for any reason is routinely prevented from speaking

You think those who dont believe in abortion shouldn't be allowed to speak. Dear God. I am as pro choice as it comes but I think that concept makes me more terrified than having to fight against those who would introduce constraints on abortion. Would universities not be allowed to discuss the referendum in Ireland then.

So what you are saying Doodledog is that universities allow anyone to speak -isn't that challenging the no platforming question then?
We were by the way discussing external speakers I thought and not university courses.
Here's the relevant section from Cambridge's general discipline regulations
 
No member of the University shall engage in harassment in the course of an academic, sporting, social, cultural, or other activity either within the Precincts of the University or elsewhere in the context of her or his membership of the University or in circumstances where the victim of the harassment is a member, officer, or employee of the University or a College. Harassment shall include single or repeated incidents involving unwanted and unwarranted conduct towards another person which is reasonably likely to have the effect of (i) violating that other’s dignity or (ii) creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating, or offensive environment for that other

I thought I wouldn’t post on here as it would deteriorate into the same old, same old, a)TWAW or b) men can be feminists or you’re wrong etc. etc. and it did. I think it took 4 posts to get to and 19 to shoehorn transwomen in.
But I wanted to say thanks to Iam64 for the original post and thanks to Rosie51 for the link to DH.

Rosie51

That makes far more sense Doodledog I was beginning to think universities must have mutated into little more than adult nurseries.

Not quite yet ?