Cancel Culture or Free Speech

I do see what you mean Galaxy, about the way most of us contain our behaviour in order to conform to the norms in our society. Key for me is the belief ‘it isn’t all about me’. Yes life throws all kinds of challenges our way, we never know what struggles others are managing or negotiating.

Anniel

Dickens, I guess I drew attention to the article as those who are devoted readers of the Spectator are generally older traditional types. Then there was the Moral Maze devoted an hour to the subject so Trans issues are a topic of note at this time. I did not draw attention to it because I agree with the writer. No doubt The New Statesman or some independent journalists will write a column. I just like to read around controversial subjects just as many of you do.

OK, take your point.

I often read The Spectator, and just as frequently don't agree with the views expressed - but it's a good 'balance' to read as widely as possible.

I thought the article was not very good because the author took a subject that is quite complex and simplified it to fit around his obvious bias.

He's equating trans gender issues with modern-day "emotivism", ignoring the fact that 'self-identity' has been around for hundreds of years, long before we started to categorise it.

I believe we all to some extent have an 'inner self' regardless of whether we're trans gender or not. But we don't always express it because we largely conform, and are expected to conform, to the norms of what society expects from us.

If you see what I mean.

It's really good to read articles we dont agree with. I read the Spectator sometimes in the same way I used to read Owen Jones.

VS
I'm talking about violence

If I can stand here and say, no violence is acceptable and I will never speak or act in such a way to inspire any form of hatred and violence towards anyone no matter how disgusting I find their views

Can you?

I say no violence is acceptable.

But who is it committing the violence?
Towards JKR?
Towards Kathleen Stock?
Towards females?
Which people speak in support of this violence by refusing to condemn those who commit the violence?
Which people constantly slate females, calling them transphobic for wanting to protect females from the violence?

Did I miss the answer from VS?

To clarify the meaning of dishonesty or deceitful.

If I went into your house (your safe space) uninvited, carrying a weapon (though not planning to use it) , claiming I felt like a member of your family, I’m sure you would say:

a) my claim was dishonest,
b) you wouldn’t believe I’d carry a weapon not planning to use it.
c) You wouldn’t excuse my dishonesty.

So why make excuses for those males who enter female safe spaces?

I’d know I was being deceitful, which is why I wouldn’t do it.
Evidently some TW (males) don’t think that they are deceitful or dishonest and some people think they should be allowed to be so.

Rosie, you won’t get an apology. If you ask for one you’ll be accused of ‘hounding’. I understand your frustration - I really do - but I try (not always successfully, I know!) to deal with the way our words get twisted all the time by remembering that people reading the threads can see what’s happening, and it’s the thread as a whole that matters.

It’s maddening when it happens- you spend time thinking about an issue and composing a post, only to have someone ignore the salient points, pick on a minor detail and misrepresent you. The temptation is to defend yourself - of course it is - but that’s what they want. It deflects away from the point you really wanted to make, which is one they can’t answer. Being told your reaction is ‘strong’ is classic gaslighting, so ignore that, too.

Dickens, I guess I drew attention to the article as those who are devoted readers of the Spectator are generally older traditional types. Then there was the Moral Maze devoted an hour to the subject so Trans issues are a topic of note at this time. I did not draw attention to it because I agree with the writer. No doubt The New Statesman or some independent journalists will write a column. I just like to read around controversial subjects just as many of you do.

VioletSky

I've never been to uni, wouldn't know much about it, sorry

You don't have to have been to university to have an opinion VioletSky I just think that a very pro-trans university should have been a bit more active in getting the trans struggle recognised, not just used it as an academic exercise.

I took your That's a strong reaction Rosie to be a judgement on my post, and probably critical of it. I think that when somebody is lied about there should be an apology, but maybe you disagree? Anyone is welcome to directly quote me where I said as GagaJo asserts "there is no such department".

I've never been to uni, wouldn't know much about it, sorry

VioletSky

That's a strong reaction Rosie

I'm sure this can be talked through without the confrontation, it's easy to be misunderstood and I also felt that Gagajo was being challenged on her knowledge and she did already name the topic as Sexual Dissidence

Yes it's a strong reaction. Don't you react when lies are told about you? GagaJo couldn't quote where I said the department didn't exist because I never said it so just doubled down to reinforce the original lie. Perhaps she'll dispute my Stonewall and the T facts. Thinking about it, shouldn't Sussex University and its students feel thoroughly ashamed not to have campaigned for Stonewall to include the T before 2015, being as they were so vehemently pro trans?

I absolutely loved my time at Sussex uni. It was both so privileged and also so supportive. The expectations of the lecturers were huge and the course was so famous (infamous?) there were students from all over the world there. I count myself very lucky to have experienced it. It expanded my world vision (and I'd already lived in 3 different countries when I went there). And to think I almost went to Warwick!

That’s a strange reaction from someone who objected earlier on tonight.
I’m sure it could have been talked through, but it wasn’t given chance. Plus ça change

That's a strong reaction Rosie

I'm sure this can be talked through without the confrontation, it's easy to be misunderstood and I also felt that Gagajo was being challenged on her knowledge and she did already name the topic as Sexual Dissidence

GagaJo The truth is I did not say the department didn't exist and if you had any integrity you'd apologise for saying I did. Strange that she was there for 18 years before any problems arose. I was under the impression that Sexual Dissidence covered so much more than transgender issues, I thought it covered all aspects of sexuality and its implications but you obviously know better.
I know twisting of what people have said is commonplace on these threads but outright lies go too far. (hint read what I wrote not what you decided to reply to) I still find it odd that Stonewall only acknowledged the T in 2015, bit late to the party weren't they?

This is fascinating. I remember April Ashley. The history is much longer than you think
historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/lgbtq-heritage-project/trans-and-gender-nonconforming-histories/trans-pioneers/

Anniel

Can I ask if the combatants here would read this Spectator account of Trans ideology. I found it interesting but do not wish to engage in argument.

www.spectator.co.uk/article/trans-ideology-and-the-tyranny-of-feeling/

But why this article?

There's many such and reams of column inches on the matter - some more erudite than others.

I'm not sure if he's joined the chorus of those who blame the "feminisation" of society for, well just about everything 'that's-wrong-with-society' or if he's postmodernist, but I wasn't overly impressed with his writing on the matter.

He just hit a few of the 'high notes' in a rather contrived fashion (IMO). Short and snippy. With little nuance.

I'll pass on it. 👎

Well, I sat through lectures in trans theory, read trans books off the reading lists of my professors and wrote essays on it. Including, as I've said, my thesis.

So I think my first person experience of a big trans focus (not to mention a VERY well stocked library of books on it - fabulous!) trumps your opinion to the contrary.

It was there. It was in full focus. Before the millennium. Before Kathleen Stock set foot there.

You're wrong. If I could find my thesis, I could produce it as primary source evidence.

GagaJo

Iam64

Rosie51

GagaJo

Bluecat, Kathleen Stock didn't want reasoned debate. She elected to work at one of the UKs most pro-trans universities and then publicly sought controversy.

If she'd wanted polite, reasoned debate she would have elected to join somewhere less diametrically at odds with her perspective. She was the equivalent of Trump at a democratic convention. Or Corbyn at the Tory conference.

She's achieved her objective. She's a notorious figure in academia now. It'll sell loads of her books. Win win for her.

Kathleen Stock joined Sussex University in 2003, that's 20 years ago! At that time, as a lesbian, she would have felt very at home around the Brighton area. It wasn't a pro-trans university, trans was not the issue it is today. It is demonstrably biased and downright deceitful of you to declare she joined the university wanting the vile treatment she's been receiving She's achieved her objective. I wonder if you've even read Material Girls or seen her in debate. She always stays calm, is measured and very polite, unlike many of her opposition. She never resorts to bare faced lies.

Thank you Rosie51. Your post helped me breathe and continue to participate. Gaga’s post caused me distress, which surprised me.
It’s dreadful to rewrite history, to demonise good women like Stott and Rowling. It adds nothing constructive to the debate and alienates so many.

Except she's wrong.

I was there. Studying in the department she claims didn't exist.

GagaJo Show me where I have said any department didn't exist? I'll thank you not to lie about me. The current demands of trans self ID, admittance to single sex spaces, prisons etc were not evident back then. In 2003 there wasn't even the T in Stonewall's advocacy, that didn't get added until 2015. Which in itself is surprising since we're told transpeople were very much at the forefront of Stonewall's fight from it's inception in 1989. Very self-sacrificing not to want official recognition for 26 years.

Iam64

Rosie51

GagaJo

Bluecat, Kathleen Stock didn't want reasoned debate. She elected to work at one of the UKs most pro-trans universities and then publicly sought controversy.

If she'd wanted polite, reasoned debate she would have elected to join somewhere less diametrically at odds with her perspective. She was the equivalent of Trump at a democratic convention. Or Corbyn at the Tory conference.

She's achieved her objective. She's a notorious figure in academia now. It'll sell loads of her books. Win win for her.

Kathleen Stock joined Sussex University in 2003, that's 20 years ago! At that time, as a lesbian, she would have felt very at home around the Brighton area. It wasn't a pro-trans university, trans was not the issue it is today. It is demonstrably biased and downright deceitful of you to declare she joined the university wanting the vile treatment she's been receiving She's achieved her objective. I wonder if you've even read Material Girls or seen her in debate. She always stays calm, is measured and very polite, unlike many of her opposition. She never resorts to bare faced lies.

Thank you Rosie51. Your post helped me breathe and continue to participate. Gaga’s post caused me distress, which surprised me.
It’s dreadful to rewrite history, to demonise good women like Stott and Rowling. It adds nothing constructive to the debate and alienates so many.

Except she's wrong.

I was there. Studying in the department she claims didn't exist.

Mollygo

VioletSky

I'm not talking about hurt feelings I lovecheese

I'm talking about violence

If I can stand here and say, no violence is acceptable and I will never speak or act in such a way to inspire any form of hatred and violence towards anyone no matter how disgusting I find their views

Can you?

I say no violence is acceptable.

But who is it committing the violence?
Towards JKR?
Towards Kathleen Stock?
Towards females?
Which people speak in support of this violence by refusing to condemn those who commit the violence?
Which people constantly slate females, calling them transphobic for wanting to protect females from the violence?

The threats are by no means one sided. However the publicity is. The Professor of Gender Studies at Sussex University, someone well aware of the problems of her transgender students has been misquoted in the media, her motives for offering trans supporting flags to staff wrongly presented and suffered so much abuse on Twitter that she had to withdraw for several months. All because Kathleen Stock accused her of campaigning against her. The university did not offer Professor Phipps support.
Kathleen Stock is not the reasonable unbiased academic she pretends
feministgenderequality.network/statement-of-support-for-professor-alison-phipps/
www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09612025.2022.2147915

The Sexual Dissidence course begun at Sussex in 1991. Key focus, trans theory.

Rosie51

GagaJo

Bluecat, Kathleen Stock didn't want reasoned debate. She elected to work at one of the UKs most pro-trans universities and then publicly sought controversy.

If she'd wanted polite, reasoned debate she would have elected to join somewhere less diametrically at odds with her perspective. She was the equivalent of Trump at a democratic convention. Or Corbyn at the Tory conference.

She's achieved her objective. She's a notorious figure in academia now. It'll sell loads of her books. Win win for her.

Kathleen Stock joined Sussex University in 2003, that's 20 years ago! At that time, as a lesbian, she would have felt very at home around the Brighton area. It wasn't a pro-trans university, trans was not the issue it is today. It is demonstrably biased and downright deceitful of you to declare she joined the university wanting the vile treatment she's been receiving She's achieved her objective. I wonder if you've even read Material Girls or seen her in debate. She always stays calm, is measured and very polite, unlike many of her opposition. She never resorts to bare faced lies.

Oh I beg to differ Rosie51. I did my MA at Sussex before the millennium. It was very much a big part of the curriculum. I wrote my thesis on it and I was by far not the only one with that focus.

She is trying to sell books. Why go to work somewhere where you know you are swimming against the tide?

I have NEVER said a man wearing a dress is a deceitful man.
I have said, truthfully that a male who knowingly enters female safe spaces, appears when a female attendant has been requested, enters a female sports competition is dishonest or deceitful regardless of apparel.
That doesn’t mean I deny anyone the right to be trans. Trans is a choice made on how a person feels. Being trans shouldn’t mean being dishonest, and most trans find dishonesty abhorrent. A few see dishonesty as acceptable.

VioletSky

It's not a student union, it is a pay to join private members union

Yes, I know that. And that it's distinct from the Student Union.

And students can join the OU. If they pay.

Trans gender and non trans gender students.

Perhaps you don't agree with the principle of having a private member's club? But it exists - and as such, they can invite who they like to lecture / debate.

But if students want to be part of the OU - under certain criteria I presume, they can. It is independent of the university, so why should students attempt to cancel an invited speaker.

Doodledog

*It is quite an obvious and valid question. If you are going to say transwomen are not women but men in frocks or dressed as women how will you distinguish which are natal women and which trans?*
If someone thinks they are really a woman how can it be dishonest to dress as one?
Is this a serious question? How can it be dishonest for someone who is not something to dress as one?

If someone impersonates a police officer, it is an offence. Why might that be? Because if people think someone is a police officer they might allow access to areas that would otherwise be kept private? Because police officers have powers of arrest, and the right to handle others during that process that other members of the public do not have. Because of course it is dishonest, as it deceives people, and that deceit can lead to criminal activity.

You might say that not all police impersonators are doing so for nefarious reasons. That may well be the case. Some people might 'get off' on being mistaken for police officers -autopolicephiles, perhaps? All the same, because some of the impersonators might cause problems it is an offence. This is why the police have ID cards, but these can be faked, and there would not always be time to check out an ID number in a fast-moving incident.

Ditto doctors, solicitors and other professions and trades.

Say you are injured or taken ill on a train, and a doctor comes to help you, are you going to ask for proof? What proof could s/he give? If someone set up office as a solicitor and you go in to get advice, do you ask to see their certificates? If you do, how do you know they aren't fake?

The answer, of course, is that we don't know by looking, and for that reason the onus is on the impersonator to know that he or she is breaking the law, and that there will be a penalty if they are caught.

But I thought we were not prescribing how people should dress. If men are entitled to wear dresses because we are abandoning gender norms you can't then allege that a someone wearing a dress is a deceitful man. He may be a trans woman, he may be a man in a dress it doesn't matter does it? because gender norms have been abandoned. And a transwoman is a woman, she thinks so, many others think so.
Why should your prejudices take precedent?

Rosie51

GagaJo

Bluecat, Kathleen Stock didn't want reasoned debate. She elected to work at one of the UKs most pro-trans universities and then publicly sought controversy.

If she'd wanted polite, reasoned debate she would have elected to join somewhere less diametrically at odds with her perspective. She was the equivalent of Trump at a democratic convention. Or Corbyn at the Tory conference.

She's achieved her objective. She's a notorious figure in academia now. It'll sell loads of her books. Win win for her.

Kathleen Stock joined Sussex University in 2003, that's 20 years ago! At that time, as a lesbian, she would have felt very at home around the Brighton area. It wasn't a pro-trans university, trans was not the issue it is today. It is demonstrably biased and downright deceitful of you to declare she joined the university wanting the vile treatment she's been receiving She's achieved her objective. I wonder if you've even read Material Girls or seen her in debate. She always stays calm, is measured and very polite, unlike many of her opposition. She never resorts to bare faced lies.

Thank you Rosie51. Your post helped me breathe and continue to participate. Gaga’s post caused me distress, which surprised me.
It’s dreadful to rewrite history, to demonise good women like Stott and Rowling. It adds nothing constructive to the debate and alienates so many.