Michael Rosen, queering children’s literature

I read all the responses to Michael Rosen's appeals for commentary on two different tweets, and none were "aggressive" - from either side. Just disagreement and linking to articles. On the other hand Michael is pulling the 'I'm 73, and cannot possibly keep up' card and the 'I've had a hard day, and cannot be bothered with all this' card, and a few accusations of being 'patronising' when people really weren't. Michael is being very weird about all this. He's playing faux-naive (when he did an interview with 'Trans Like Me' author C N Lester a few years ago), calling for more info, then criticising those who respond by giving him more info. I hope out of all this he has at least learnt a thing or two about the dodgy paedophilic, pro-incest roots of Queer Theory

Well, I'll be interested to see if the event is still going ahead. I'm not sure the response to 'queering' children's lit was quite what they organisers had hoped.

If you look at the responses to his tweet you'll see:
TRAs: stroking Rosen and saying "so sorry the nasty people abused you, stick with us and all will be fine"
other fence sitters: "it's too complicated, ignore it and just be content like us"
GC: "WTF? But surely if you think about the issues ..."

It puts Rosen in quite a comfortable position.

Anna Carlile's tweet seems to have disappeared.

I didn't see any aggression, or even rudeness, fwiw, from either side. Just disagreement. As we know, some people can't countenance that.

If he genuinely does think GC women were being aggressive he needs a better sense of perspective, but men often have an unreasonable reaction to even the tiniest degree of anger when expressed by women.

He didn't make it clear. However, it meant he could claim that because a simple old bloke like him was attacked when looking at this issue, he'd been driven away. Poor victim Michael.

how do we know he was referring to gender critical women as being aggressive?
that would not have been my interpretation when I looked at it yesterday

If everyone stopped pretending that leftist and "progressive" are the same thing that would aid greatly in clarifying issues.

Wouldn't it just.

I'd forgotten until just now that I told him there were meme apps of him and he was annoyed he wasn't getting commission from them!

He's an old school progressive materialist leftist capitalist

Was anybody on the feminist side actually rude to Rosen?

No, not that I saw.

But there were lots of "don't listen to them Michael, these are the same people who wanted S28, and caused the gay panic of the 80s." - which can be enough to deter some people from looking at the deeper issues.

The fact that I've never come across a gender critical feminist who is a) homophobic, or b) in favour of S28 - doesn't seem to mean anything. It's pure slander against us.

Rosen has described himself as having progressive values. He's also on the Left.

If everyone stopped pretending that leftist and "progressive" are the same thing that would aid greatly in clarifying issues.

Was anybody on the feminist side actually rude to Rosen? Because all my experience of these debates suggests that the hate and aggression comes entirely from the other side.

It takes a brave "progressive" celeb to discuss this issue critically when there's a risk it will affect their brand.

But Michael Rosen isn't a progressive celeb. He's an old school materialist socialist - except, as we see here, when it comes to the "identities" of XY persons. He knows, and has always known, exactly what the issues are.

You're pointlessly splitting hairs based on the words people are using.

Which is what people often do when they know they don't have a valid argument.

Whistleblowing is for workers, and applies in very specific scenarios that don’t apply here at all.

Yeah, we're going to have to disagree on that. The word "whistleblowing" has a wider cultural meaning.. It's in the public interest to know what is going on in our schools and that teachers are gaslighting pupils. You're pointlessly splitting hairs based on the words people are using. The point is that what was said to him was shocking. Who would have believed him if he'd complained? He'd have been laughed out of the office.

We can argue about this much more, but I think your objections to my words are petty, and so there is not much point continuing to repeat this. Let's agree to disagree that what Murray did was a reasonable act of protest and in the public interest.

I don't want to derail the thread further.

That's a clever tactic by Rosen. I wrote:

Or he's creating a record of tweets that can be spun as being sympathetic to gender critical views should the right side of history not turn out so right in the end.

To which had can now construct a narrative of "But when I looked and asked questions I got an aggressive response and so, naturally, I withdrew. I tried, honestly, I tried."

It takes a brave "progressive" celeb to discuss this issue critically when there's a risk it will affect their brand.

it was an act of whistleblowing

Also not true.

Whistleblowing is for workers, and applies in very specific scenarios that don’t apply here at all.

The student no bout had a grievance, and would have been quite justified in making a compliant to the school leadership, but he is not a whistleblower.

www.gov.uk/whistleblowing

Does the usual insistence on facts, evidence and sources not apply when it suits your position?

Again, there would need to have been very clear grounds for exclusion, and there’s is a rigorous appeals process. Posting the video might well have formed part of the grounds.

Saying stuff in class that goes against a school policy is not grounds for exclusion, and you’re being really misleading and manipulative by insisting that’s what happened.

Imagine how many kids would be out of education if schools could exclude for saying something in class. Every homophobic remark, every bit of casual racism... it doesn’t work like that, as any parent knows whose kid has been on the receiving end of verbal abuse in class.

It's not the most important thing that literature for children can do.

Can't say I'm surprised that Rosen has turned out to be another Jolyon Maugham.

They're all for women, until the women actually want their rights enforced, or their children protected from this sexualised queer theory crap in the classroom. Then, it's oh no, "you're being nasty let's all just be nice" - while turning a blind eye to the rape and death threats meted out by some of the TRAs. Same old same old.

Exactly, Eresh.

The reaction of his teacher was awful - no teaching, or discussion, or even explanation offered - just an out and out "you cannot say this."

The teacher said "I am not putting my opinion out, I am stating what is national school authority policy"

"Policy."

That word should tell everyone exactly how schools have been captured by the likes of Stonewall training progams for schools.

Not facts, not science - but policy.

This boy was kicked out for not adhering to the doctrine dictated from on high, when the teacher told him to.

Full marks to him for resisting the brainwashing, and having the courage to say so.
www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/07/03/student_kicked_out_of_class_for_saying_there_are_only_two_genders_gets_banned_from_school.html

"Second thoughts: I can see there are tweets directing aggressive stuff at me about gender. I’m a 73 year old whose political attention has been elsewhere. My bad. So be it. I will block people picking on me simply because I’m here. Thanks and goodbye" says Mike.

Called it. He can't be arsed. It's only women.

It was an act of whistleblowing. It doesn't matter how "high the threshold is" for an exclusion. They looked idiotic, ideologically captured and incompetent, basically. The exclusion was clearly down to him making and posting that video. And that video showed the response to him saying there were only "two genders" (sic). So it is true to say that is why he was excluded. I see no point in equivocating. The salient point is what was said to him on that video. It was quite shocking.

The video was pretty damning. So ultimately that is what he was excluded for

You clearly don’t know how exclusion processes work! The thresholds for permanent exclusion are very high, and require a documented history in detail, a trained exclusion panel, and potentially an appeals panel.

Stating as if it were fact that “a boy was excluded for saying there were only two genders” is out and out false.