Stonewall article; silencing democracy and a lucrative gravy train

This might be of interest to those concerned with academic freedom & online social networks. twitter.com/HullUni_Library/status/1141260579027456001

For years I was suspicious of the term 'whiteism'. Then, and I can't remember precisely what event tipped me over the edge, I began to see the TRA's, particularly in university's, as pushing whiteism to the nth degree.

The routine racism directed at black people, particularly black women, and the outrageous misogyny are easy clues. Indeed the insistent cry from MCWs (Men Claiming Womanhood) that TWAW comes overwhelmingly from white men and their (white) female allies.

Although of course there are exceptions in the black community (Dawn Butler MP's position on transracialism isn't known) I suspect the lack of support for the transgender cause from the black community might just be because it realises that it will be next-in-line, with transracialism the next battleground.

With male whiteism not content with colonising women's space, the protected characteristics of the BAME community is also ripe for re-colonising.

FWIW, I think the thing about pronouns in the original letter was unnecessary and ill-advised. Made criticism of the whole thing far too easy.

The problem is, if Stonewall say this, and academics say "OK", then the next thing they will be told they can't say someone is male (or are we already there?).

So, I always like to look backwards a bit.

How did it get there, that universities were thinking they needed to accept these kinds of demands to be "good". They really just fell into line over this, the groundwork must have already been laid.

As academics and other colleagues working in higher education, we are writing to register our support for policies and practices which are inclusive and supportive of our trans colleagues and students.
Criticism and critique of policies and programmes that promote inclusiveness, such as Stonewall Diversity Champions, is not in and of itself unwelcome. Such things are products of dialogue and discussion, and they evolve over the course of this dialogue. However, the primary concern must be with the wellbeing of the people subject to those policies. The vulnerability of the LGBTQIA+ community, especially young people and those who are transgender or gender-diverse, is well documented. As educators, we have a duty of care to our students and colleagues. Respect for their gender identity and/or sexuality is an integral aspect of that duty of care. It is inconceivable that this duty should be considered antithetical to “academic freedom”. Rather, ignoring or denying it precludes our fellow academics and colleagues — be they undergraduate students, postgraduate candidates, early career researchers, lecturers, professional-services staff or innumerable others — from experiencing a secure and supportive environment safely to pursue their own freedom.

We support the rights of colleagues to free speech, and safe debate, but until all LGBTQIA+ people can live, work and learn in our universities without fear or intimidation, it is vital that we stand up and say that we support the rights of trans and other gender-diverse people to be who they are.

Here’s the text of the response letter.

FWIW, I think the thing about pronouns in the original letter was unnecessary and ill-advised. Made criticism of the whole thing far too easy.

Quick update: woke academic twitter has just mobilised to condemn the letter to the Sunday Times.

The response letter is all about being supportive of LGBTQI+, especially trans people, and it has 2000 signatures. (Having read the letter, the only thing in it I disagree with is the support of the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme because that does interfere with academic freedom.) It's the same old problem, who wouldn't like to be nice to people? But this misses the point, and I just don't understand why so many academics can't see that.

Thank you to everyone who signed that. You are heroic.

From that thread:

Extracts from the 2017 Financial Accounts of Stonewall:

2017 Total income £7.2m

Donations 1.7m
Grants 0.9m (total income from govt 0.65.million)
Sponsorship 0.4m
Events 0.8m
Fees 2.2m
Programs 0.5m

I presume income from training comes under 'fees', as does membership in the Stonewall Diversity Champions scheme. 40 universities pay £900,000 over 5 years, that's about £180,000 per year (but presuming more organisations have taken up training opportunities in the last five years), which still leaves many, many more organisations making up the rest of that £2.2 income.

Relevant thread:

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3488261-The-Financial-Juggernaut-that-is-Stonewall

Thanks Needmoresleep and GCAcademic. I couldn't remember which uni it was.

Plus "trans" only started popping up when DD was leaving school. Then it suddenly seemed that there was at least one trans kid in every local school.Their peers presumably will come to their own conclusions.

MB = Munroe Bergdorf, the NSPCC's would-be trans-ambassador.

Though not surprised that younger kud6s are more openly GC. Youth generations seem to last 5 years, max.

DD & her friends are GC. DD2 is still at school and doesn’t know who MB is, probably thinks they’re old & a dinosaur.

But we weren't required to be politically correct at all times

Misgendering was not potentially a sackable offence, even a crime.

Throw in exam pressure, global warming and an uncertain job market, and it is hard to envy them.

Bless. We only had mass unemployment, AIDS, CFCs, Chernobyl, and impending nuclear war to deal with.

I think post Millennials are interesting. They have been raised to be tolerant and accepting. Racism is a no no, as is homophobia. Her sixth form peers seem to have claimed every varient of pansexual, demisexual etc, or at least until alcohol and hormones took over at the first big party and most reverty to fairly traditional behaviour. Drugs are more prevalent, as is porn, and mental health issues are common and talked about. Throw in exam pressure, global warming and an uncertain job market, and it is hard to envy them.

As far as I can see many are more conservative in the social behaviour than we were. They work hard, apply for internships, ignore the Students Union and politics. Corbyn has lost much of his early appeal. But the fear of being labelled has many unwilling to express private doubts on trans, politics or anything.

If you have to spend a day being educated on trans, so be it. There was scope for it to have been really interesting. But the speakers were apparently absorbed by their own specialness. If there is a problem with access to trans healthcare, and I have no doubt there is, this was a wasted opportunity.

DD seem to think any views I hold emerged in the time of the dinasaurs. But she and her friends seem sceptical in their own way, once they get over their ignorance. She had to explain to a friend that you cant change sex,he really thought you could...a Grammar school boy too.

I do think the BBC and others get 'yoof' wrong. I don't think MB, who is in her 30s has any real resonance. Ever LM, already quite old to be an UG is perceived as creepy and irrelevant. YouTube influencers however can hold more sway. (Though in DDs case current role models are English footballers.)

The letters are all under the same heading i.e. the first one, I think it's Boris today.

Needmoresleep has your DD seen the light?

The new CE of Stonewall is going to have to work very hard to retain income streams. Once the image is tarnished big corporations and others won't be interested in paying to display the logo.

I hope then that diversity and equality can go back to looking at barriers preventing people reaching their potential as a result of disability, race, sex, sexual attraction etc.

Ova - it was Edinburgh University, and it was mentioned in one of the articles on the attack on Julie Bindel.

It was Edinburgh University.

These organisations know that the wider public is mostly not supportive of their anti science bilge so they have carved out a corporate gravy train to keep them going.

It seems that year on year the work and requirements demanded of these institutions to remain 'compliant' grows exponentially. I read somewhere this week that one institute (a university?) had abandoned being a Stonewall champion because of the administrative pressure it caused.

Can someone repost if they remember where that story was from.

I suspect this cost is only the tip of the iceberg - or maybe the skin on the gravy.

Medic DD had a full day of training a few months back. She was interested (as obviously her mum is wrong on everything) and settled in for what she hoped would be a day of endocrinology, long term medical regimes, descriptions of interesting and pioneering surgery, advice on patient treatment and communication, diagnosis of dysphoria with possible co-morbidities, etc.

Instead they got a lot of "brave and stunning". The afternoon session was run by a natal male who had not opted for any surgical or hormonal treatment, leaving them just with a discussion of why anyone would want their birth sex hidden from their medical records, an unnecessary risk as far as the students were concerned.

Measurable outputs would have been:

• useful income for the morning speaker and the various transpeople who led the smaller afternoon sessions.
• an increase in scepticism in a group who, though potentially sympathetic, also understand biology.
• a missed opportunity to educate future GPs to an extent that they might be confident prescribing/treating rather than referring.
• a missed chance to encourage those who might be interested in specialising in gender medicine.

I suspect the cost of the day would not show up in the University budget as it would have come under the medical school. I assume other medical schools round the country hold similar training events, as might nurses, paramedics and other courses for health professionals. .

I see Alison Phipps has referred to the signatories as ‘the “feminist” division of UKIP”

What’s that sound...? Oh yes, a barrel being scraped

Thanks, truth - I was interested to see who had signed it. But I’ve just seen screenshots on Kathleen Stock’s Twitter feed:

mobile.twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1140140381079781378