Baroness Nicholson 'cancelled' by Booker board

It jolted me a bit. Doesn't seem to be the view here, but then we're fairly self-selecting, maybe?

Share token for Janice Turner's article in this post.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/a3951542-Is-anyone-else-furious-deflated-at-the-amount-of-energy-this-is-taking-up?msgid=97835751

Zoikes:

"Is he one of these strange types who only ever associate with people exactly the same as him lest his intellect ever be challenged?"

No! He is really switched on about this. It really surprised/disappointed me that he came out with that. I think one factor is that he has spent his entire career working in the public sector, and currently works for one of the most egregiously woke organisations in the UK where it is apparently completely impossible to voice anything less than unquestioning support for TWAW. He has to bite his tongue on the regular. I think he's just been inadvertantly conditioned by the prevailing culture of tiptoeing around LGBT issues.

Ironically I've only ever worked in non-PC small businesses in working class areas, but in a creative industry which employs many gay people without any fuss or special treatment. We have many heterosexual 'blue collar' workers of all ages who left school at 16 and haven't received any sort of woke indoctrination and are perfectly happy to work in a professional manner alongside LGBT colleagues as equals. Without the input of any LGBT workplace networks or Stonewall training!

Disclaimer: it's Saturday night and wine has been consumed, and I apologise for any terminology which might inadvertantly offend.

I'm impressed by the Baroness's ability to get results, and I'd be interested to hear more about her views on the potential negative effects of equal marriage on women and girl's too, although it's rather a moot point now. I think the views of older women with more life experience than myself are worth hearing and shouldn't be automatically overlooked just because they grew up in a particular era with prevailing views that are out of step with our own.

Thanks

It's been shared with a share token on other threads Fanta, sorry I cant point you directly

Does anyone have a share token for Janice Turner's Times article about this today?
It's getting rave reviews on Twitter but I can't read it.

Oh no! Does that mean is Asda is on the wrong side of history again?

She is so effective, the recent swiftness of Asda's turn around on their horrific schools pack was really impressive once she made them sit up and took notice.

I am quite disturbed that anyone would seek to distance themselves from anyone, let alone someone with the wonderful record and abilities to get stuff done as the Baroness, just because that person holds (or did hold) a now out of favour but mainstream view. A view held by a range of types of people and for a number of different reasons. I would actually be interested to know why she holds/held that view, why she felt it might damage women and girls.

It actually really upsets me that anyone would think that she should be in any way tarnished, let alone her record be diminished.

Anyone else completely bewildered at this ridiculous notion that humans have to agree on everything all of the time in order to work together on one specific belief or goal?

Even my GC, very politically aware DP said the other day that he was concerned that she wasn't such a good ally to have

Is he one of these strange types who only ever associate with people exactly the same as him lest his intellect ever be challenged?

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. Free speech matters.

Bump

Cara Dune that's a good point, that Baroness Nicholson shouldn't be marginalised or vilified for being on the minority side of the gay marriage debate. It troubles me that GC people seem to have to give a disclaimer that they don't agree with her on this. Even my GC, very politically aware DP said the other day that he was concerned that she wasn't such a good ally to have because of it.

Maybe like Zoikes says it's all part of trying to stay on the right side of the purity test. But if the rules of the test keep changing, we can never pass it. It's mindbending! More and more, I just want to stick two fingers up to purity, and stand up for what I believe is actually real and important.

If Booker cared about the Baroness' vote enough to denounce her then they would have done it at the time.

That they would drag it up years later as "evidence" of wrongthink shows two things.

Firstly that they do not believe her alleged crime of "transphobia" is grounds enough in itself. Not reason enough, not publicly acceptable, not effective or believable as a crime in itself.

Secondly that the only people able to pass the Booker "test" of acceptable purity of character are welcome - the conditions of this test can be altered at any time.

Witch hunt.
McCarthyism.
Fascism.

I think ultimately for me it's about the old fashioned liberal (in the sense of Mill, Bentham, Rawls etc.) distinction between the public and private realm. I see religion as like a private club - if they want to set their rules such that they don't offer religious marriage ceremonies to gay couples, they should be within their rights to do so (and any other sects which decide differently should equally be allowed to offer gay religious marriages.)

But legal marriage is out there in the public realm to be decided by social consensus. Baroness Nicholson got to add her voice to the attempt to form that consensus, as was right and proper. The vote went the opposite way - that certainly doesn't mean she should be villified or marginalised for being on the minority side.

Emma Nicholson impressive on Today. She apologised for the unkind and deeply offensive (yes it was) thing she said on Twitter about Bergdorf and has asked if they can talk and said that now she knows of Bergdorf's activism she believes they would have a lot of common ground. She is remorseful and I think understands how wrong her comment was.
Of course she will never be forgiven by TRAophiles or have a dialogue because this isn't the game. She's become major grist to their mill. Her gender critical views will be forever tainted by this transphobic comment.
Yes she will be 'cancelled' which does not, as someone ridiculously suggested above, mean literally killed, but like all women and people who stand up to the current trans ideology she will be belittled, ridiculed, sidelined, humiliated, deplatformed in as public a way as possible. This is what public debate has been reduced to.

Cara Dune you're right marriage is a social construct and biology is not. But some people have deeply held beliefs which are protected in law, and they are entitled to vote in line with them.

I totally agree with you about the importance of not changing the definition of the word woman!

she didn't agree with the redefinition of the word marriage - as far as she was concerned it was defined in the Book of Common Prayer as a union between a man and a woman, and it couldn't and shouldn't be changed.

Fast forward to right now, with the word 'woman' apparently up for wholesale redefinition, and I can completely see where she was coming from.

There's a crucial difference. Marriage is a social and cultural construct, but some form of it seems to exist in most societies (largely because it's tied up with concepts like property rights, inheritance, which children are legitimate, and also it's a handy way of controlling women's reproductive capacity). The C of E and the Book of Common Prayer don't have a monopoly on what it means.

"Woman", on the other hand, is a word that has an external referent (unless you're a hard-line philosophical anti-realist): it refers to the people like us, with uteruses (for the most part, whether working or not), vaginas, ovaries, etc.

It also has social and political implications of course: we are people with a shared biological reality which has (due largely to the actions of men collectively) political consequences for us, many of them adverse. And a huge history of sexism and oppression on the basis of our biological sex behind us.

You can't change the meaning of the word without (a) denying biological reality; (b) removing a voice to a politically oppressed group and (c) engaging in massive historical revisionism (again with bad political consequences for women).

This whole furore has really crystallised something for me that goes back to the vote on legalising gay marriage. At the time I had a conversation with my mother who is a similar age to the Baroness and like her a lifelong member of the Church of England. She said that she was absolutely fine with civil partnerships for gay couples, but she didn't agree with the redefinition of the word marriage - as far as she was concerned it was defined in the Book of Common Prayer as a union between a man and a woman, and it couldn't and shouldn't be changed. At the time I couldn't understand why it was such a big deal for her, but it clearly was. For the record I have never heard her say anything negative about homosexuality in general or about any gay person individually.

Fast forward to right now, with the word 'woman' apparently up for wholesale redefinition, and I can completely see where she was coming from.

As far as I can tell the Baroness's opposition to the change of the definition of marriage to include same sex couples most likely stems from the same background as my mother's. When she voted against the bill, she had to balance two protected characteristics from the Equality Act - the right to freedom of belief (including religious belief), and the rights of gay people to have equal treatment in law with straight people. I daresay that since civil partnerships gave gay people equal rights and legal protections, she decided that she was able in all good conscience to vote in line with her (legally protected) beliefs.

Now I don't have any religious faith, and (to coin a phrase) some of my best friends are gay, but you know what? I now think 'good for her' for standing up for what she believes in, and voting for what she thought was right. It's a relief to see a politician with convictions in this era of vacuous political nonetities with no record of achievement, no moral compass and no ambition other than to get into power and then say whatever they have to just to stay there.

Anyone got a email address for any big wigs at Booker?

I want to send off a belting email.

hemulens, that's awful. I feel for you. But it's possible to still do a lot of useful work without speaking out publically. Take heart.

Just here to let off steam. The company I work for happily joined in the cancelling of the Baroness. I really need my job and don't feel able to speak out publicly. It is like a game of equality top trumps... gay/ male/ trans beats female/ disabled/ religous.

The lack of critical thinking astounds me. Will JK Rowling be seen one day as this generation's Orwell? Animal Farm was initially rejected by several publishers for being too controversial...