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

Rosie51

I am absolutely astounded that they can ever have any speakers if 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, . A person who finds the denial of biological sex distasteful and the consequences of gender neutral facilities threatening would be able to object and this would be grounds to prevent a speaker who espoused these views from speaking?

It doesn't work like that, Rosie.

It would be impossible to run a university like that and still offer courses in pretty much any subject. There is always somebody who will object to anything, and they can't be indulged.

What does tend to happen is that there are 'trigger warnings' so that those who might take offence at something can leave the room before hearing it.

trisher again I say I'm astounded that they manage to have any speakers at all, since I would think there will always be someone who will find the proposed speaker's take on any subject distasteful and/or threatening, unless it is so anodyne as to be of zero interest to anybody.

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

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 ?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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?

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.