Trans activists hound Nadhim Zahawi off university campus

On the subject of 'transphobic dogwhistles', on the Jeremy Vine show a while ago, there was a non binary woman who compared using 'adult human female' to racist football supporters throwing a banana onto a football pitch, ie, saying that although there's nothing inherently racist about a banana per se, the intent is clear.

Bit of a stretch....

2 things ; I am fed up with any opposition being framed as 'transphobic'. It's not a fear of something ,is it?
I am fed up with the word 'cis' . If I can self ID , then I am a woman ,
END OF.

It's not a transphobic dog whistle. The activists call it that, because addressing the statement with debate is something they would lose so they want to make the statement interpreted as something hidden, a nasty transphobic slur of some kind.

Debating the statement would lay it bare that the activists do want the group currently consisting of adult female human beings not have any names at all and not to be able to coordinate politically or even to discuss its sex-related concerns by using proper terms for them.

From the same article

Rejecting calls for a smacking ban in England, Mr Zahawi added: 'My very strong view is that actually we have got to trust parents on this and parents being able to discipline their children is something that they should be entitled to do.'

'We have got to just make sure we don't end up in a world where the state is nannying people about how they bring up their children.'

I'm going to agree with them on this one. as I find that a concerning view. But then I was regularly beaten black and blue for incredibly inconsequential things, so maybe I'm biased? missed

There are parents who can't be trusted. So on this one i would prefer that it was illegal to smack children. If you smack your husband it's domestic abuse if you beat the shit out of your kid it's perfectly legal.

Even if "Adult human female" WERE a "common transphobic dogwhistle" (it's not, or at least that is not its main, original, primary, or most important contemporary use), so what? TWAW has become a common misogynist dogwhistle - and arguably a rape apologist one too, given how often it is accompanied by threats of sexual violence. So then: it's just as ethically OK and as reasonable for me to shriek "Forest Gump!" and hit people who say this? What's the point, and where does it end?

Or men pretending to be women.

MagnoliTaint

Zahawi has also made very concerning comments regarding corporal punishment [these are not quoted] and has made other transphobic remarks such as using the common transphobic dog-whistle "adult human female".'

• *had a look for what this was and found

Daily mail 21/04/22 Nadhim Zahawi yesterday admitted that his wife has smacked their daughter 'on occasion' while rejecting fresh calls for a smacking ban in England, leading to criticism from children's workers for a 'lack of safeguarding knowledge'.

& I realise being offended is just my problem - should have said I really dislike it - but still my problem - still can't see how adult human female is a transphobic dog whistle though. Although I don't get open water swimming either.

"the common transphobic dog-whistle "adult human female"."

I find this offensive. I am getting on in years so definitely adult , if I were a sheep I would be a ewe but I am not, I am a biped with opposable thumbs so pretty sure human and I have all the right chromosomes. So adult human female is technically accurate. I tend to use the word woman as it's quicker .

I remember getting a masterclass in calm reasonable debate at the tender age of 7 whilst staying with my very very religious protestant, on every church committee, granny

I assume it was an act of rebellion by my mother, mind you, to get me christened Roman Catholic, at least the other granny was happy with that!

Anyway one afternoon just after lunch the doorbell rang and there stood two young American gentlemen with a religious book in their hand and matching name tags. Of course granny being granny, every moment is a teaching moment, invited the gentlemen in. It was dark when they left.

There had been no raised voices, no accusations of one or the other being wrong. Just many many hours of interesting debate and an exchanging of informational leaflets.

Now whilst I don't think granny learnt much that day, after all she could already suck eggs! those two young gentleman did. And I having no skin in the game religion wise learnt a really good lesson in taking the time to listen to the other side opinion.

On the other hand a trip to Tesco with my mother once resulted in the shop assistant in the fruit aisle screaming at my mother because my mother had asked her very politely why the apples were from South Africa? And did they have any from somewhere else as many mother refused to buy them on principle.

A ten minute rant from the assistant ensued with her calling my mother all sorts of things whilst my mother tried to calmly explain the situation as to why she didn't wish to purchase South African apples. Eventually the shop manager arrived and dragged the screaming banshee away!

Two occasions, two differing sets of opinions. Two completely different reactions. Both educational in in very different ways! I know which I preferred though!

Young women are more likely in general to pick up on new language trends, social ideas, etc.

They are a majority on campus anyway, and especially in humanities subjects.

But also they are also much more likely to embrace social justice causes on a relational basis and then use tools like social pressure to get things done - apparently this is pretty much the case across cultures. If you think, historically, about something like the Temperance movement, you can see the same impusle in a different form.

Well doesn't that make them look completely rational people, open to thoughtful considerate debate!

I am so bored of this complete inability for rational well thought out logical dialogue with those of differing opinions!

Because they see all too clearly what happens if you don't tow the party line-Do it to Julia!

I hope he has a serious look at where these people are getting their information. Because it starts in schools.

It must be taken out of schools. It's an ideology, ffs.

And yes a protest leading to assault requires prosecution.

I won't be holding my breath tho. The hopeless inertia of those in a position to make changes is one of the most frustrating aspects to this.

This is what concerns me too, the bulk of protesters do appear to be young women: anyone any thoughts on why this is? Genuinely would like to know!

I've done some very lightweight research into the Albert Kennedy Trust (AKT) this evening based on them being quoted in the press release above as I hadn't come across them before.

What I found was concerning.

AKT is a homelessness charity for LGB+ teens set up in the late 80s to respond to the homophobia still present at that time within family households.

I suspect as with Stonewall the more widespread acceptance of LGB since then has led to a focus on the T as the next cause.

The study quoted had 161 respondents. The vast majority of respondents were seemingly recruited by the AKT social media i.e teens who had an interest because they were already having problems with homelessness. Presumably all the LGB+ teens who live in safe supportive households were unlikely to follow the page and therefore unlikely to respond.

The facebook page is a car crash of telling young T people to be fearful of coming out. To expect negative reactions and to have escape plan ready.

It would be interesting to survey the parents of T teens to find out what their initial reactions were. I would imagine the vast majority was 'shock, large glass of wine and extensive midnight googling' rather than 'violence requiring the teen to move out'.

The big danger is that the Tories will use this as another excuse to try to bring in their bill to regulate universities and academic freedom.

This is not a good thing.

I wish Warwick had stood up more strongly in enabling free speech on campus, but after all, this is the university which caved in to lawyers’ pressure on behalf of a group of over-privileged raped twats they had as undergrads there a few years ago.

I have colleagues there and from what I hear, don’t think Warwick cares much about women …

This is what they're calling 'abhorrent'? Honestly?
Defending a bullied academic and safeguarding children - the bigot was asking for it! ;o)

okay, I've reread the press release, and highlighted Zahawi's comments:

'[on] Professor Kathleen Stock

“It was unacceptable that a scholar of her calibre should be hounded out of university. For me that was just a terrible stain on the history of that great university.”'

....

'Concerning Zahawi's view on trans students, he said the following:
"Parents have to be front and centre of this. And that is my message to the front line is to say: you have to involve parents in this. You have a duty to safeguard those children and parents are very much part of that."'

...

'Zahawi has also made very concerning comments regarding corporal punishment [these are not quoted] and has made other transphobic remarks such as using the common transphobic dog-whistle "adult human female".'

This is what they're calling 'abhorrent'? Honestly?

'Grace Lewis, Chair of Warwick’s Labour society, told the Boar: “Warwick Labour unequivocally do not support Nadhim Zahawi’s abhorrent views on Trans rights.'

Abhorrent? Oh, no. What has he said?

Here's the Warwick students' newspaper's report: web.archive.org/web/20220528141307/theboar.org/2022/05/lgbt-protestors-disrupt-education-secretary-nadhim-zahawis-warwick-visit/

Good. The more politicians come across this violent batshittery the better.

Hmmm that’s assault

Well, one of the acitvists landed a punch, according to one of the reports. That's not acceptable.

Forest Gump lol!