Durham Philosophy Journal editor sacked for saying women don't have penises

[PlantsArePeopleToo]

www.palatinate.org.uk/assistant-editor-of-durham-philosophy-journal-fired-for-transphobic-retweet/

Someone please tell me that this isn't true and is some kind of piss take. Or that there is more to the story or something.

The world really has gone mad.

It's the begging of the end. I can't extrapolate the words to say what I feel about it.

Maybe we could rebrand it ‘The Stonewall Misogyny Award - for Institutions that Aren’t Safe for Women’.

This is interesting, relevant and dispiriting, all at once.

I paraphrase, but, how student snowflakes are harming themselves.

www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/?utm_content=edit-promo&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=the-atlantic&utm_term=2018-09-14T22%3A34%3A27

This is such a great thread. Thank you, dancelikeEmmaGoldman, for the link to the excellent article in The Atlantic, which was thoughtful and thought-provoking.

This is MN at its best.

Really interesting article. Thanks for sharing.

"Putting together a statement in defence of @Sofocleous_A and others targeted for their beliefs on gender identity. Asking for people from organisations, people who know Angelos to sign, other people who have been targeted can get mentioned in the article if you let me know."

twitter.com/Fisher_Download/status/1041777081737248769?s=19

Here is the statement mentioned above. You can still add your signature to it.

conatusnews.com/thought-crime-uk-solidarity-angelos-sofocleous/

Some good news

I am happy to see that Durham Students' Union has carried out an investigation on my firings from @DUPS_Critique and @DurhamBubble and has concluded that my firings were unfair and undemocratic, calling for the journal and the magazine to apologize. Thank you @durhamSU. t.co/ZR94AktBEZ

I see good things ahead for Angelos. He's bright, articulate, charismatic and no pushover. I hope this shit show will be the making of him.

twitter.com/Sofocleous_A/status/1056874851015761920?s=19

Very good news.

So good to hear this - applauding and phew! What a horrid time that must have been

Excellent news

So Students’ Unions haven’t completely lost the plot. Good.

Great news! Well done! The voice of reason won this time!

Thank goodness for that!

Apology up on Durham SU website. Hopefully other universities will follow suit and get to grips with the fascist tendencies of some of their students.

www.durhamsu.com/articles/apology-to-angelous-sofocleous

Hold on: all that that statement is saying is that proper procedures weren't followed - ie, no verbal warnings, written warnings, whatever It concedes nothing on the grounds for his dismissal, I don't think

Yes, that's all it does - but it's an important recognition that even students unions (let alone the grownup parts of unis) must follow proper procedures.

Surely if they recognise that he was removed from his posts unfairly, he should be reinstated?
I’m glad at least that he has this apology. This whole mess made me embarrassed to be a Durham grad when I’ve always been so proud to have gone there.

Well, women don't have penises, but it's still a volatile subject to broach at work. We all know that.

If somebody in the public eye proclaimed "fat people are generally not attractive" I imagine they'd also get crucified.

Attractiveness is subjective.

Penises are not.

Ok, well if they said "most people find fat people unattractive" it would likely get a unfavourable response...

Do we know whether he only complained that he hadn't followed the correct procedure? I'm a bit confused by the Durham SU apology.

It says A complaint that correct and fair regulatory procedures were not followed in removing Mr Sofocleous from both groups has been investigated and upheld. No complaint in connection to debates about freedom of speech or trans rights has been upheld.

Why start one sentence with "A complaint .... has been upheld" and a second sentence with "No complaint .... has been upheld" .

Am I reading too much into it or are they implying that had they followed correct procedures that they were justified in firing him for his comments?

I think what they are trying to say is that each society is responsible for electing their various positions and can remove officers if they decide they have no confidence in them/ if they breach SU policy but they have to follow proper procedures if they want to do that

Sorry posted too soon

If they want to remove someone then they have to follow procedures either via a vote of no confidence (which can be on any basis if votes by members) or following an investigation which finds they have broken the rules with appropriate warnings etc.

The SU haven't ruled on if those rules have been broken, just on the fact that proper procedures weren't followed.