Jess de Wahls

Perceived transphobic nature.

So not necessarily transphobic, just "perceived".

And as pretty much anything can be "perceived" as transphobic by some people, where does that leave us?

And this is in the face of all of the comments they've received.

How very disappointing.

That is an excellent article. Thanks for posting it Clymene

Another good article: uncommongroundmedia.com/stitched-up-with-embroidered-accusations-artist-jess-de-wahls-cancelled/?fbclid=IwAR33tX93SXlZkL18njhu0hllrz1OU4uy1OoVkuxhUiJUM9XN1zmsWIds8N0

They will be going through after Georgia O'Keeffe next.

I’ve also just ordered from Jess’ website and am happy to wait for as long as it takes as it’s great to see so many things sold out or on pre order.

Wonder if Oliver Dowden has said anything to them. Given how monumental this is, I should think the RA are in fierce debates right now.

What will happen to their Summer Exhibition? Will they be asking potential exhibitors to submit a 'political CV' just to make sure they exclude any TERFS

Equalities law for people who care about affirmation, but aren’t actually too bothered about inclusion and equality.

These are the charitable objects of the Royal Academy

1. THE PROMOTION OF THE ARTS OF DESIGN. 2. THE EDUCATION OF THE PUBLIC IN THE CREATION, ENJOYMENT, APPRECIATION AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE ARTS, THROUGH EXHIBITIONS, EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMES AND DEBATE BY ALL CHARITABLE MEANS AS THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL MAY THINK FIT.

Looks like they are generally pro debate.

They also seem to have forgotten about inclusion of trans people, given that we are all supposed to have a gender/gender identity/express gender.

personal characteristics such as age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, marital and civil partnership, or pregnancy.

Gender and gender identity are already covered under sex and belief.

If they want to recognise additional characteristics not covered by the EA, why not include class, nationality and income level?

religion or belief

Fail

race

Also a fsil, according to some PPs

From the RA website:-

The RA is committed to becoming a truly inclusive place for our visitors, Friends, artists, and all those who work, study and volunteer at the RA. We believe that everyone should be able share in and contribute to the RA experience, free from bias or discrimination based on personal characteristics such as age, disability, race, religion or belief, sex, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity or expression, marital and civil partnership, or pregnancy.

The RA aims to ensure that these principles of diversity, inclusion, and equal access apply to all aspects of our operations. We recognise that upholding these principles benefits both visitors and the people who work with and for us.

As previously pointed out on this thread, this statement of policy puts the RA in a very weak position if they want to exhibit art or an artist who has been controversial in any way.

I don’t think their behaviour even falls into the category of being ‘woke’. They have been hoodwinked into declaring a policy that can only conflict with their core values, which, I think it’s fair to assume, do not support censorship of art.

Same. Frankly I think they have to backtrack. The optics look terrible. I hope she tells them to fuck off.

I'm so torn on this. She was the first textile artist that they accepted this fully - and textile is an under-appreciated art form that is mostly practised by women.

However, yes - she's been treated disgracefully.

Artists (the Academicians are artists) turning against artists in the name of censorship from people with no interest in the arts: shameful.

If all people those in the arts should be fierce in the defence if free expression, and anti-censorship.

They have been made to look very stupid.

Which ever side of the sex v gender debate you stand.

If it were me, even if they backtracked and apologised I wouldn't want anything to do with them again.

Same. Frankly I think they have to backtrack. The optics look terrible. I hope she tells them to fuck off.

@ RoyalCorgi I would hope that RA writing on Twitter that Jess had transphobic views would be libel post the MF ruling that GC views are valid and protected?

Yes, I agree. In fact, I think it would be libel anyway, regardless of the MF ruling, as there is no evidence at all that Jess has said or written anything transphobic. So that was immensely foolish of them. But I'm not sure whether there is anything legally she can do about the decision not to stock her work.

Suppose the shop can stock what it wants Royal, but to have withdrawn Jess's work publicly and giving such a specific reason it could be more libellous than anything?

They presumably chop and change what's available all the time without fuss, but to have called Jess's character into question in such a damaging way certainly changes things. Suppose it's whether she wants to pursue that.

If it were me, even if they backtracked and apologised I wouldn't want anything to do with them again.

@ RoyalCorgi I would hope that RA writing on Twitter that Jess had transphobic views would be libel post the MF ruling that GC views are valid and protected?

Gosh. If only there was a way of finding such things online...

Have the RA taken down their statement on instagram, I can't find it.