Kathleen Stock. Now they are writing academic papers about how terfy she is

so clearly experts in the field didn't think it was a poor article,

Yes, that's how the institutional capture of academia has worked, do you think anyone wants to be treated like Kathleen Stock?

It's a bit like a boxing match where one opponent has their arms tied behind their back, isn't it?

Discussing an academic who was bullied, victimised and forced out of her job for wrongthink kind of makes that point for you.

those who want to refute my article can submit an article in the Viewpoint section.

Aye, but only academics, right? And funnily enough I expect many academics would be scared to do so. That's handy!

the theme of the section in the journal is Viewpoint; so it is a space where academics are encouraged to have a view and the work is peer reviewed, so clearly experts in the field didn't think it was a poor article, but, of course, I resepct your view on its quality. As I said, those who want to refute my article can submit an article in the Viewpoint section.

So you don’t think the university deserved criticism for allowing a woman to be horrendously bullied until she quit her job, all because she expressed some fairly mild and compassionate opinions?

Okay. So may I suggest that 'I want to consider Stock as a totemic figure' is a poorly phrased sentence, in that case?

It's a really poor article, IMO. In this country, where we have freedom of speech, we're allowed to look at things purporting to be research, and criticise them. We don't need to be academics to have a view, because anyone with any critical judgement can see the problems with it. This isn't even your area, you are a film studies lecturer. This is Mumsnet Feminism board where we often talk about research. Think about what you are saying, Deborah.

I didn't want to attack Stock personally - as I say in the article I have much sympathy with her on a personal level. I didn't want to dehumanise her, but see how she had been used in the right wing press to attack Universities. That's what I meant by 'totemic' - she became a symbol for an ideological cause.

Fantastic! I'm sure there are a few of us here who would welcome such an opportunity, should we have the time to break from our other research commitments.

To make it easier, June Purvis is the editor and her email address is [email protected].

I'm sure it's already been drawn to Kathleen's attention but perhaps she might wish to refute you herself.

Tbf, they wanted to flood your Twitter feed with evidence that self ID/gender ideology has its issues, not, say, with porn (as happened to JK Rowling).

Good to see you herer, devorah. How do you account for deliberately and overtly turning a woman into a 'totemic figure'? This seems dehumanising.

(Not an academic, so presumably I have no 'right to reply' through your suggested channels (and not on Twitter).)

I know the editor of the journal wants to offer a right to reply to an academic who wants to refute my article.

Yes, I hope they do. Also, you should be ashamed of your actions outside FiLiA, and your support of misogynists.

I am the writer and was responding to someone who said Mumsnet readers should flood my Twitter feed. I know the editor of the journal wants to offer a right to reply to an academic who wants to refute my article. I welcome debate on my work, but not insults.

Because anti-trans folk are also the the anti-feminist Conservative right, doesn't mean we feminists should not also be critical of the call for trans-rights. That is a red herring, specifically the fallacy of guilt by association.

Also, reporting a pile on because your PUBLISHED article targeting an specific person is causing (what you claim is) a "pile on" is beyond hypocritical.

Grow up. If you're an academic, own your "research" and take criticism.

It's generally good forum etiquette to declare if you are the writer of the piece, or at least not try and vaguely pretend that you are... it's not clear.

Please don't further the accusation that all posters on this forum are 'anti-trans'. Many have trans relatives or could be considered trans themselves. It's frustrating to have someone wade in and decide they know enough about us to tell us what we believe.

If you mean me I am absolutely not encouraging a pile on!

If so devorah can I recommend this thread: www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/3348290-It-will-never-happen-resource-thread

It’s a distressing but necessary read I think.

I have reported this as you seem to be encouraging a hateful pile on. As I say in the article I am against any sort of violence against GC or trans inclusive feminists.

Are you the writer?

sorry to disappoint you, but the article was researched and did undergo peer review by two expert reviewers. Really glad folk are reading it, but sad Mumsnet folk target trans women. Did you like the final pledges? I was trying to bring us together and asking us to focus on what really places women in danger. The same forces of toxic masculinity target women, and LGBT people and many anti trans folk really don't support women's rights,

US academics that I follow - including the ones strongly in favo(u)r of free speech on campus - are very sceptical about the University of Austin. More universities simply need to adopt the Chicago principles.

Slightly tangential, but here is an article in today’s Washington Post about University of Austin, the new University that Stock is due to join. WP seem to agree that Universities need to be braver in allow dissenting opinions.

www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/16/university-of-austin-intellectual-diversity/?pwapi_token=eyJ0eXAiOiJKV1QiLCJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiJ9.eyJzdWJpZCI6IjM3MTk5NjA2IiwicmVhc29uIjoiZ2lmdCIsIm5iZiI6MTY3MTMxOTA0MSwiaXNzIjoic3Vic2NyaXB0aW9ucyIsImV4cCI6MTY3MjUyODY0MSwiaWF0IjoxNjcxMzE5MDQxLCJqdGkiOiI0NjIyYWY1Yy05OTAzLTRlMDEtYmUzYS02YjhhOWM1NDdiYzkiLCJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL3d3dy53YXNoaW5ndG9ucG9zdC5jb20vb3BpbmlvbnMvMjAyMi8xMi8xNi91bml2ZXJzaXR5LW9mLWF1c3Rpbi1pbnRlbGxlY3R1YWwtZGl2ZXJzaXR5LyJ9.ZwLmKEo-yTUwfwOfOij_d4RzKfBzqcijbhomE6Y_gD8&itid=gfta

This!!!

If the writer was really dedicated to trans rights, they'd be centering a trans person in their publications instead of Kathleen Stock. Tut.

She doesn't seem to realise that many gender critical women look to the Telegraph in spite of not being its natural audience because the stories aren't covered by left wing media.