Veracity of claims in the Observer letter

[iisme]

One of the objections to Bea Campbell's letter in the Observer (along with a lot of other objections that seem like nonsense to me) is that some of the claims in the letter are incorrect. Specifically:

• Kate Smurthwaite's gig was cancelled because only 8 tickets were sold and not because of objections from the student body.
• The Cambridge Union did not withdraw an invitation to Germaine Greer to speak, but a separate (pro-trans) event was held at the same time.
• Rupert Read basically took away all the legs he was standing on by declaring himself to have been unequivocally wrong to say there was a debate to be had on or that some people have a legitimate issue with the word 'cis'.

I strongly support this letter but have many friends who strongly oppose it and I want to be able to argue my case clearly and convincingly. I have tried to find objective evidence about the Smurthwaite and Greer points but there seems to be a lot of opposing opinion and little pointing to evidence. Does anyone have any views or information on this?

Kate Smurthwaite presents her side very convincingly here - cruellablog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/goldsmiths-and-me-full-story-proof.html

Germaine Greer wasn't no-platformed in the end - the Cambridge Union refused to do it, despite calls from various groups, and so it went ahead as planned.

And I'm afraid Rupert Read did back-pedal very fast. Thinking of his political career, presumably.

I've heard a lot of people making the argument that actually very few people have been no-platformed, and why are these eminent people complaining when they all have columns in the Guardian blahblah. IMO, the letter was really written on behalf of those people who can't speak out about these issues because they're too afraid for their jobs/reputations. As one of those lowly people, I've personally found it very heartening to have someone like Mary Beard showing her support.

The 'Kate was cancelled because no tickets were sold' thing is a load of old bollocks. As the ComSoc said in their correspondence with Kate, it was a free night for members of the ComSoc and FemSoc, but they sell tickets to the public who are interested. They had no idea how many people would come from the 2 societies.

Really, the objections to that letter are completely pathetic.

Ok, thank you, that's really helpful.

I think it was very telling that people like Sarah Brown et al had continued to repeat the "poor ticket sales" lie long after they'd been presented with evidence to the contrary. It was a deliberate and dishonest attempt to harm the professional standing and reputation of a woman just because they disagreed with her.

The really bizarre thing is that Kate Smurthwaite has always been very trans-inclusive, and vocally so (eg about Reclaim the Night, etc) but that wasn't enough to stop them calling her a TERF.

Annie... they are STILL repeating the poor ticket sales thing, because, like 3 year olds, they believe that continuously telling the same whoppers will make the gullible believe them.

The FemSoc didn't even oppose her on grounds of TERFery, they have a mental safe space thing against SWERFery so, an opposition to speech about the Nordic model etc , the TERF accusations came later when she didn't immediately capitulate, don sackcloth and ashes and beat her breast in abject apology.

It was interesting (galling) that Rupert Read talked to local trans people about his suggestion that some women have a legitimate problem with 'cis' and realised why they object to what he said. But he didn't bother to talk to local women to understand why they object to 'cis'. No need to talk to non-trans women, eh - the trans community was able to explain why they have absolutely no right to a voice ...

Another thing re Germaine Greer at Cambridge, Sarah Brown is clear in the tweets that they tried to get the CU to withdraw the invitation and seems unable to contemplate any objection to an attempted no-platforming.

I see a consistent theme from trans activists of telling blatant lies as if they were the truth. I'm not sure whether they genuinely believe these lies or they accept them for political expediency. I'm not sure which is worse.

Feminists like Julie Bindel have space in the national media. But it still has a negative impact on their unpaid feminist activism. So it is false to say it doesn't have an impact on all radical feminists.
Also this is having a massive impact on radical feminists in universities who are being asked to leave feminist societies and ostracised for their views.