Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Cambridge University LGBTQI+ students: we are not attempting to silence free speech, we just want to deplatform Helen Joyce

211 replies

snurtifier · 18/10/2022 10:11

Helen Joyce has been invited to talk at Gonville & Caius College next week. This has provoked the usual outbreak of virtue signalling and the following response from "college LGBTQI+ officers". It is pretty much the full bingo card. Warning: contains complex mental gymnastics.

Dear all,
It has come to our attention that Gonville and Caius college, and the Divinity faculty, are hosting a speaker event on the 25th of October platforming Helen Joyce. This event has also been promoted by the Fac Bio to natural sciences, medic and vet med students. The title of the event is ‘Criticising gender-identity ideology: what happens when speech is silenced.’
Helen Joyce is a ‘gender critical’ activist, whose work largely focuses around anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. “Gender identity ideology” is frequently used as a dog-whistle for transphobic sentiment, cloaked in the language of free speech and scientific inquiry. It goes without saying that this kind of rhetoric is fundamentally against what we as LGBT officers stand for, and we are unanimously disgusted by the platforming of such views by Caius and the promotion of the event by the various faculties. Transgender identities should not be put forward as a subject for debate, and their existence is not an “ideology.”

Colleges, and the wider university, have a duty of care to their students, no matter their gender identity. By inviting speakers with inflammatory and bigoted views to speak, the staff involved are allowing transphobia to proliferate within the university, lending it a level of credibility, and crucially, potentially putting transgender students in harms’ way. Transgender people are an at-risk minority group – according to the Stonewall School Report 2017:
92% of trans young people have thought about taking their own life;
84% of trans young people have self-harmed; and

45% of trans young people have tried to take their own life.

Further to this, just days before the event was announced, the Home Office published the past years’ statistics on hate crimes in the UK, which revealed that transphobic hate crime has increased by 56% from last year, with 4,355 reports being made in England and Wales. In light of these statistics, the platforming of a speaker with these transphobic views takes on a particularly alarming salience.

Freedom of speech, of course, is protected in law; Helen Joyce has the right to speak as she pleases. The core of the issue we take is with the senior staff and fellows who have chosen to platform this speaker, which we consider a violation of their duty of care. To invite a speaker whose publicly expressed views include advocating “reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition” both legitimises active transphobia and also alienates and hurts transgender individuals on a personal and emotional level. Furthermore, the fact that this has been promoted to medical students, who will inevitably treat transgender patients in their future careers, presents a further risk to trans individuals not just in the university, but in the wider community, with the potential for wide-reaching and long-lasting harm.

This is not an attempt to silence free speech, but rather, us exercising our own right to that speech in the face of an event which is, in our view, not only irresponsible but actively harmful and cruel to the transgender students at Cambridge. Trans people deserve a university experience as comfortable, safe, and joyful as everyone else, and the University should take an active role in ensuring that – a role that they have, on this occasion, failed to fulfil. It is for these reasons that we implore Gonville and Caius to reconsider their decision to platform Joyce.
If any individual feels unsafe, upset or troubled by this event, please talk to someone – your college LGBT officer, an SU representative, a college or university counsellor, or a charity helpline. We have attached some resources at the end of this letter.
With love and solidarity,
The college LGBT officers

OP posts:
TheClogLady · 18/10/2022 13:09

Do people typically think there are no topics that should be off-limits for a publicly hosted talk at a university then?

The line should be the law, so nothing that the courts have declared as not WORIAD (not worthy of debate in a democratic society) and nothing that involves incitement to violence.

if students think the law is wrong, they should campaign to change the law, not just impose their own rules re: what and what isn’t acceptable.

Catabogus · 18/10/2022 13:07

But when a university hosts a talk, isn’t there a sense that the institution thinks the subject of the talk is a legitimate issue? If the local “fascist club” hosted a talk on racial IQ I wouldn’t be too het up. If it was Uni of Cambridge I would be shocked.

Catabogus · 18/10/2022 13:05

i mean, I’m aware a talk on “The Holocaust: did it really happen?” would attract all sorts of unsavoury people with dubious motivations - but so would “Are Black people less intelligent?”. I just don’t think anything Helen Joyce wants to say would fit into this category (I realise this may be because I agree with everything I’ve read by her!)

TheClogLady · 18/10/2022 13:05

I guess I’m thinking of something like “Do people who aren’t white have lower IQs than white people?” or similar. I wouldn’t be keen on that being hosted or promoted.

I instinctively wouldn’t like that either, and it would be hard to motivate myself go along and listen, but surely doing that and asking pointed questions is the most fruitful way forward? Or to insist on it being a debate, rather than a lecture, perhaps with another academic department booking the other speaker?

Or if no one was willing to engage in a direct debate perhaps lobby for an alternative presentation elsewhere on campus?

In your particular example the alternative event wouldn’t actually need to book someone to speak on the same subject, just get a reknowned black academic to do their own thing on the same day and then the students organising it can work their arses off to promote their own event and far outsell the other one.
This would result in favourable press for their event and thus in context, whomp whomp noises for the other speaker.

I dunno, I guess I’m just thinking about what I’d encourage my own teens to do, rather than get something cancelled or turn up and shout obscenities and bang on the walls!

Aim to creat a battle of ideas, not a silent climate of fear?

I’m sure there are loads of glam London based trans celebs who would appear on a panel type event in Cambridge that same night - I doubt any would be brave enough to debate Helen Joyce, but they could surely do an alternative?

Shon Faye’s book was released at the same time as Joyce’s and Faye does lots of speaking gigs. Why not aim for Shon Faye on the other side of the campus, scheduled to start either before or after? Maybe even get some of the same audience to move from one to the other?

Catabogus · 18/10/2022 13:03

Oh I agree with you that, regardless of the scholarship, Black Athena is a great subject for public debate!

I’m surprised people would be happy with a public university hosting a talk (or research) on racial IQ differences though. It’s not that we “know the answer” - it’s that merely hosting the debate would imply it’s a legitimate issue for concern when in fact it would most likely be a pretext for justifying racism.

Do people typically think there are no topics that should be off-limits for a publicly hosted talk at a university then? I’m not sure why David Irving should be deplatformed really but racial IQ differences would be fine.

Brefugee · 18/10/2022 13:00

I'm in Germany so, for eg, a Holocaust denier won't get a platform anywhere because it's illegal. So i do get that some things are just too far in some cultures.

But i firmly believe that if you want to rebut something you do just that, with clear logical and factual argument against what they say, to their face, preferably with an audience. Sink or swim.

snurtifier · 18/10/2022 12:57

@Catabogus I can remember attending a talk by Martin Bernal, who wrote a controversial book called Black Athena which claimed that much of ancient Greek culture was derived from Egyptian sources. Then and now his work was widely disparaged by classical scholars, but they didn't seek to deplatform him. Instead they all turned up to the talk and gave him a thorough working over in the questions afterwards.

I guess there would be an argument for refusing a platform to someone like David Irving, but that's an extreme case.

OP posts:
beastlyslumber · 18/10/2022 12:55

I would think that's a great question for debate. It's clear, has a simple for/against and can be argued on the basis of evidence. The person with the most convincing evidence would have a showcase to prove their point.

Why do you think it shouldn't be debated, Catabogus? I guess you could say we already know the answer but surely it's still good to show and explain the answer?

Catabogus · 18/10/2022 12:45

I’m really interested in all the comments that seem to suggest there should be no limits on what debates/discussions can be held.

I personally don’t find Helen Joyce’s views at all problematic and can see no earthly reason why she should be de-platformed - but there are topics I presume most would agree shouldn’t be the subject of a formal debate at a top (or any) university. I guess I’m thinking of something like “Do people who aren’t white have lower IQs than white people?” or similar. I wouldn’t be keen on that being hosted or promoted.

Also interesting on Gaddafi speaking at the Union. I remember this and the protests, but I thought the right decision was made to let it go ahead. I do feel this is different from the racial IQ question above.

Brefugee · 18/10/2022 12:43

well quite which is why i am pretty much avoiding all discussion on these topics here and elsewhere.

The sad thing? I'm not transphobic. I want to find a way forward that causes the least harm to anyone. TRAs are not arguing in good faith - and there's not much point. I'm old. I don't have to put up with it much longer :(

JunkIsland · 18/10/2022 12:41

@Brefugee Why debate when you can dismiss your opponents outright by labelling them dishonest and hateful?

It’s so much more efficient and effective: you don’t have to go to the bother of formulating responses to what they’re saying, and you also dissuade other people from engaging in the first place and therefore judging the other side on its merits. I mean, if we assume that such-and-such speaker is motivated purely by hate, what they say is not only worthless (ie a waste of time to listen to), but might also be actively unsafe.

It’s also completely unprovable either way, so unlike with other arguments the person cannot disprove what you’re saying. And the more they are forced to say ‘I’m not a bigot’, the worse it looks for them.

Catabogus · 18/10/2022 12:39

lady69 · 18/10/2022 12:10

I am interested in attending. When is it and where do i go for tickets?

It’s not ticketed, I don’t think. It’s at 7pm at Gonville & Caius (Bateman Auditorium) on 25th October

Helleofabore · 18/10/2022 12:37

LolaO · 18/10/2022 12:00

Few points:

(A) Varsity is just a student rag - it doesn’t have actual sway over policy or decision making
(B) Cambridge has always had speakers some deem controversial. That is a good thing. Might be worth someone pointing that out… some might consider Helen Joyce “controversial” (I don’t, especially, and would be interested in attending that talk if I were still there) but certainly doesn’t merit this sort of response. I would point out that when I was at Cambridge col. Gaddafi spoke at the union. A literal dictator, who had been involved in HR abuses and deaths. There was a small peaceful protest, but he was able to speak…

Yes. And those attending his event may or may not have agreed with anything that he said. Attending the event should be viewed with gaining a better perspective about that person or that topic. Even listening to the most abhorrent person can mean that a future policy/decision maker has a great insight and what to look for and how best to protect people.

beastlyslumber · 18/10/2022 12:37

They are so fragile it does mu head in. I just got permabanned from a reddit sub for gently defending JKR. (Third sub I've been banned from!) All I did was ask what she said that was transphobic! I got called some horrible names and then they deleted their accounts. I felt bad for how upset they were. They clearly could not handle having their views questioned. We have somehow manage to raise a generation of young people who are so privileged, entitled and ignorant that they think someone disagreeing with them makes them unsafe. I feel bad for them but it's pathetic.

Helleofabore · 18/10/2022 12:33

Brefugee · 18/10/2022 11:50

They are at Cambridge. Surely they are a bit intelligent? If their arguments against what Helen Joyce is likely to say are logical and coherent, they will be able to debate her and make her ideas look wrong?
Or aren't they able to do that?

She isn't standing up and proposing a T4 type "solution to the trans problem" afaik, so what are they afraid of? Robust debate? This is where "prizes for all" and "anti-authoritarian" parenting has brought us: todays students are incapable of formulating and articulating logical and rational arguments. They should all be ex-matriculated for that and their places given to people who can.

I was about to post the same.

This is really concerning that one of the supposed leading universities in the world cannot host a speaker and then debate that speaker if they don't agree with the speaker's points.

pepperaunt · 18/10/2022 12:28

Not DD’s college but one of them is her subject. I’d love to think that she would attend, listen, and ponder but, alas, she is fully one of the “Be Kind” brigade

FernPotts · 18/10/2022 12:24

This is what happens when adults have been allowed to convince children that their poor mental health and any suicidal thoughts is somehow proof of their transness

Or the transness was a response to poor mental health caused by a traumatic situation, not the other way round. That looks very likely for the young girls I know.

dropthevipers · 18/10/2022 12:19

Can these people be told simply to fuck off, and stay fucked off?

Andante57 · 18/10/2022 12:15

I think those objecting just enjoy seeing the university authorities caving in and grovelling.

Whatsnewpussyhat · 18/10/2022 12:12

This is what happens when adults have been allowed to convince children that their poor mental health and any suicidal thoughts is somehow proof of their transness and that they are in constant peril from anyone who could burst their protective bubble.
They are the perpetually emotionally and mentally fragile.

They think perfectly ordinary women who understand biological reality are like some crazy Scooby Doo villains.

lady69 · 18/10/2022 12:10

EmmaGrundyForPM · 18/10/2022 11:36

So am I

I am interested in attending. When is it and where do i go for tickets?

LolaO · 18/10/2022 12:00

Few points:

(A) Varsity is just a student rag - it doesn’t have actual sway over policy or decision making
(B) Cambridge has always had speakers some deem controversial. That is a good thing. Might be worth someone pointing that out… some might consider Helen Joyce “controversial” (I don’t, especially, and would be interested in attending that talk if I were still there) but certainly doesn’t merit this sort of response. I would point out that when I was at Cambridge col. Gaddafi spoke at the union. A literal dictator, who had been involved in HR abuses and deaths. There was a small peaceful protest, but he was able to speak…

ChlorineChris · 18/10/2022 11:57

One thing (among very many) that I just cannot understand is the TRA/other side obsession with quoting, quite frankly, unbelievable suicide statistics as some sort of proof or definitive point.

At the same time as insisting that being trans is something that should be dealt with solely in the medical arena, and refuting all suggestions that improved psychological support, counselling and exploration of mental health needs could be more what is needed for this group of people.

Suicidality is a measure of mental health distress. It is not definitive proof that everyone around you has to do, and say all the right things, deny their own reality, wants and needs and give your opinion more weight over and above everyone else's.

In less kind and enlightened times, constantly impressing upon others the severity of your mental health issues would be a sure fire way of people going out of their way to dismiss you and give your opinion less weight. Luckily, we have moved on and recognise that mental I'll health does not reduce your personhood, but I'm not sure that it increases the level of importance everyone else should give to your view either.

snurtifier · 18/10/2022 11:57

This year marks the thirtieth anniversary of the Derrida Affair. In 1992 Jacques Derrida was nominated to receive an honorary degree at Cambridge. The nomination was opposed by a number of academics. Barry Smith wrote a celebrated letter to the Times portraying Derrida as a charlatan whose works had no traction within philosophy, only within cultural studies and so forth. Interviewed about the affair in 1997, he said of Derrida: "if you eliminate truth and reason - if you eliminate argument - then naked power is going to be the only thing left over as the means by which decisions can be made in society."

It feels a bit like Derrida has triumphed from beyond the grave. And these students are doing their best to prove Smith right.

OP posts:
Brefugee · 18/10/2022 11:50

They are at Cambridge. Surely they are a bit intelligent? If their arguments against what Helen Joyce is likely to say are logical and coherent, they will be able to debate her and make her ideas look wrong?
Or aren't they able to do that?

She isn't standing up and proposing a T4 type "solution to the trans problem" afaik, so what are they afraid of? Robust debate? This is where "prizes for all" and "anti-authoritarian" parenting has brought us: todays students are incapable of formulating and articulating logical and rational arguments. They should all be ex-matriculated for that and their places given to people who can.

Swipe left for the next trending thread