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

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.

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

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.

Rosie51 if you don't understand that some people at a university are more vulnerable there is nothing I can do about that.

Oh for goodness' sake trisher I thought you were going to be reasonable and not come out with your usual snide digs. I fully understand some people will be more vulnerable than others whether at university or not. Why do you care nothing for an 18 year old not given the privilege of attending university but being in the workplace, where there is no protection from the free speech you endorse anywhere but on campus? It seems that you are so blinkered you have no understanding or empathy outside a very narrow band and I can do nothing about that.

Actually, JB is quite well known for her conditions for attending, acceptable places , who she will sit with etc. so the quote above didn’t surprise me.

Mollygo I think she is entirely within her rights to refuse to attend something however I don't think she or anyone else should describe that as "No-platforming" which I understand as a university refusing to accept a speaker or offer them a space. If you are invited and you refuse, whatever the reason, it is quite different.

Rosie51 Ah so now it's my fault there is no protection for other 18 year olds? I thought you disapproved of any restrictions on free speech anywhere. So exactly which 18 year olds are you concerned with?
Doodledog could we confine the discussion to speakers who attend a university by invitation and who are not part of the university staff who of course have a duty of care towards all students.
Can I get this clear you think all non-platforming is wrong and regardless of what students want people should be invited to speak about anything and with any point of view?

I’m still keen to hear of a case that has nothing to do with trans issues where a university has refused to let someone speak in case they upset vulnerable students?

I keep asking, as I do not accept your assertion that this happens, and am not happy to let it be assumed that the people blocked by Stonewall’s ‘No Debate’ policy are being blocked because of a university’s duty of care, or because students are unable to deal with difficult ideas, or that gender-critical speakers are necessarily and inherently bullies. That is propaganda, and I am challenging it.

But was JB no-platformed as she alleges or did she just refuse to attend?.
By the way you'll have to wait then I have no intention of scrutinising every instance of no-platforming as far as I'm concerned it's there to protect vulnerable people, you can regard it however you want. I wouldn't expect you to change your ideas anyway. I must say you have done an excellent job of trying to make this about staff and lectures rather than invited speakers.

But here's an interesting article bout the history of no-platforming and anti-semitism wonkhe.com/blogs/anti-semitism-free-speech-and-no-platform/
Which according to you has only ever been about trans issues (I accept your apology)

trisher, I am not saying that no-platforming is only about trans issues. I am questioning the confidently asserted notion that because some students are vulnerable it is in ‘every university’s basic regulations’ that they should not be challenged, and asking for Stonewall to be taken out of the equation, as their involvement in what is allied to be discussed skews things massively.

Legal constraints, such as inciting racial hatred, or anything under the Prevent umbrella are outside of all of that, clearly, and do not fit with your suggestion that it is the mental health of these vulnerable students that drives their being banned - it is the law.

I would accept yours if I thought for a minute that you meant it.

Rosie51 Ah so now it's my fault there is no protection for other 18 year olds? I thought you disapproved of any restrictions on free speech anywhere. So exactly which 18 year olds are you concerned with?

Going for the old twist and accuse strategy again then? I'd be concerned for all or none. You have been portraying university students as a cohort that are so fragile they need special protections such as 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 go on to say you believe in free speech in all other areas, so it is you that believes there is just one group that needs these protections. I say free speech within the confines of the law everywhere.

Rosie51 I am saying that universities as the body responsible for organising the event, offering the space and enablling the event to proceed including providing security etc do as part of their duties also have a duty of care to all their students.
Any other organisation in the same position has the same obligations, if there is one.

Doodledog

I’m still keen to hear of a case that has nothing to do with trans issues where a university has refused to let someone speak in case they upset vulnerable students?

I keep asking, as I do not accept your assertion that this happens, and am not happy to let it be assumed that the people blocked by Stonewall’s ‘No Debate’ policy are being blocked because of a university’s duty of care, or because students are unable to deal with difficult ideas, or that gender-critical speakers are necessarily and inherently bullies. That is propaganda, and I am challenging it.

I am not saying that no-platforming is only about trans issues.
Doodledog
Sorry you've lost me I can't discuss with someone who keeps shifting the goalposts
It originated in antisemitism, so trans issues are only a later component.

Bullying Doodledog includes name calling- refusing to use the chosen pronoun, defaming- transwoman are usurping the places of birth women, and spreading untrue allegations transwomen are just trying to access places to assault women. In JB case she also refuses to accept transmen can give birth which seems pretty anti-feminist to me. If a woman wants to be a man surely it is feminist to allow her to do so. Or do only certain sorts of women deserve consideration?

As I say, legal constraints are different. Universities are not banning speakers who incite racial hatred - the law is.

That’s not moving the goalposts, it’s stating a fact. You said that students were protected by ‘basic regulations’ from hearing things that might be considered tasteless or unkind (or words to that effect), and presented that as fact. I am disputing that this happens. I know that Stonewall dictates the agenda when it comes to free speech about trans issues, but that has nothing to do with care for vulnerable students and everything to do with their No Debate agenda.

I am interested to hear if there have been instances (apart from those that would break the law) of other speakers falling foul of these ‘basic regulations’, or if it is just gender-critical speakers who are being silenced.

trisher

Bullying Doodledog includes name calling- refusing to use the chosen pronoun, defaming- transwoman are usurping the places of birth women, and spreading untrue allegations transwomen are just trying to access places to assault women. In JB case she also refuses to accept transmen can give birth which seems pretty anti-feminist to me. If a woman wants to be a man surely it is feminist to allow her to do so. Or do only certain sorts of women deserve consideration?

Well, clearly transmen can give birth, as they are biologically female.

Defamation has to be both untrue and deleterious to a named victim. I may be wrong, but I don’t think it can be applied to an amorphous group. Anyway, there have been very clear cases where Transwomen have usurped the places of women - ME in the ERC for one, and instances of assaults on women by transwomen in prison, for example, so even if it a group defamation case could be brought in principle it wouldn’t stand up in fact.
How is JB not allowing women to identify as men? She can’t stop them, any more than she can make a biologically impossibility happen.

Has she ever said that people can’t identify as what they like? Even if she has, do you think that students should not be allowed to listen to her views and exercise their option to respectfully disagree? Or is it only certain subjects that deserve to be debated?

Come on trisher, I’d love to know too.
How is JB not allowing women to identify as men?
Where has she said that people can’t identify as what they like.
You could save me such a lot of time looking it up by sharing your expertise on this matter.

If someone is presenting views which could result in a student being harmed or subjected to abuse or hatred I would say that person should not be permitted to use the university as a stage to promote their views.
And JB was no platformed because of her trans views (which she has since rescinded.) In the last instance though she chose not to attend which isn't no platforming. So effectively she gave up the chance to show that her views have changed..

She has said only woen give birth Transmen want to be known as men and want to give birth as men. It seems that although she thinks they are women JB doesn't permit them to do this as I said why not? Do only some women's views count?

trisher

She has said only woen give birth Transmen want to be known as men and want to give birth as men. It seems that although she thinks they are women JB doesn't permit them to do this as I said why not? Do only some women's views count?

Presumably she's using women in the female sense, and that makes her statement true, only females can give birth. Transmen are female so perhaps we just affirm that only females, no matter what descriptor they prefer, can gestate and deliver a baby.

I wonder what level of dysmorphia compels someone to trans from a woman to a man, but allows them to do that exclusively female thing amongst mammals. I also don't think individual preference should override scientific fact on legal documents, especially those that pertain to other people. No child should have to endure a birth certificate that says they were born of a man. That is just vanity validation for the parent.

So now it’s you who would say that someone with whose views you disagree should not be permitted to use the university as a stage to promote their views?

That’s a far cry from ‘basic regulations’ being used to protect students, isn’t it? Thanks for clearing that up.

She believes you cant change sex. This is a belief protected by law. Are you saying that those who hold beliefs protected by law should be no platformer.

Also it would mean that pretty much the entire population would be barred from university. No one actually believes you can change sex.

No I am saying that someone whose views might be considered abusive or damaging to a minority group of students should not be permitted to spread those views.

You know Doodledog your assertions that this is purely to do with trans issues is just ridiculous. I've already shown it's origins were in anti-semitism and holocaust denial. But to show that you really are wrong here's a link to Amber Rudd who says she was no platformed because of the Windrush scandal. (It took one Google to find it,so if you really were interested you could have found it) www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-51768634