GC Academics Targeted for Signing Sunday Times Letter

[RosaFreedman1983]

From today's Sunday Times

www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/academic-faces-sack-for-letter-to-sunday-times-that-criticised-trans-training-gnbr8gxgm

Academic faces sack for letter to Sunday Times that criticised training on trans issues
Sian Griffiths and Ewan Somerville

A lecturer who signed an open letter to The Sunday Times criticising LGBT training in universities has been threatened with being sacked as an editor of an academic journal unless she recants.

Sarah Honeychurch, a fellow in the Adam Smith Business School at Glasgow University, was among more than 30 academics who signed the letter in last week’s Sunday Times. It registered “disquiet” over a programme run by the charity Stonewall in which “anti-scientific claims are presented . . . as objective fact”.

The guidance includes instructing academics on using gender neutral pronouns such as “zie” and “ey”, as well as insisting that “one in 100 are born with an intersex trait” and that trans women should be allowed to use female changing rooms.

The letter was organised by Kathleen Stock, a professor at Sussex University. Many lecturers believe academic freedom to debate trans issues is being stifled on campus.

Last week Honeychurch, an editor of the journal Hybrid Pedagogy, received a formal email from Chris Friend, the managing editor, stating: “Unless I have misunderstood the intentions of the letter or the convictions of your signature, I must ask that you resign your position as editor for HPJ.”

Honeychurch said she had been branded a transphobe by students for signing the letter and was worried that her academic contract might not be renewed at Glasgow. But she was not going to back down.

“I’m not going to recant — I signed that letter after hard thought because people get so much abuse simply for wanting discussion,” she said.

Another signatory of the Sunday Times letter, Michele Moore, honorary professor at Essex University, who has edited the journal Disability & Society for many years, is also facing calls to resign after warning that autistic and other children might be harmed if they are wrongly encouraged to question their gender, which could lead to taking hormones and later surgery.

A petition from 750 colleagues calls on her to step down. She said her career hung in the balance because of the campaign, but the journal’s publishers and people from around the world were being supportive.

She added: “Somebody has to say we will talk about the potential harm of transgenderism of children, as many with autism or other social learning problems are being caught up in this.”

Stock said any academic who examined gender identity critically faced intense hostility.

Today more than 1,000 academics have signed a counter letter to The Sunday Times denying that the Stonewall “diversity champions” programme is a threat to academic freedom.

Thank you floisme!

Kamolphat Atsawawaranunt listed Mr pronoun as "Mr".

I did check all of them, just in case. I only recognised one name and he/him is a twat anyway!

One is a professor of genetics

Should have his wire reviewed!

Regarding pronoun rounds, I think there are many good reasons not to do them:

• no longer necessary for awareness raising because everybody in a university environment who is not brain dead is aware of transgender issues
• some students might actually find them triggering
• some students might feel put on the spot
• some students might take the piss and thereby piss off other students

I used to do them and my students complied but stared at me as if I was some sort of alien. I stopped doing them and no one complained. Easy.

interesting - one person I know signed the letter that was circulated on twitter but is now not on the letter to the Times. Cold feet? Doubts?

But...the counter letter doesn't really say anything! It's just..let's all be nice and inclusive and use preffered pronouns.
Most people would see that and go "ok then" . It doesn't say specifically what that means (which presumably is that women have no right to single sex spaces and saying that transing kids is a bad thing is gonna get you sacked).
It's a very muddily written and bland letter imo. (not an academic) (or even an A level holder lol)

One of the signatories is a senior lecturer in mechanical engineering at Robert Gordon's University (Pronouns he/him)

That's truly depressing.

The future: "Hello passengers, it appears this aeroplane was built by graduates who identified as engineers (pronouns zie/zir) so you'll all have to identify as being on holiday in Spain rather than actually going there. Enjoy your holiday... We have free pronoun badges to give out so you can all make sure you don't misgender each other while identifying as being in Spain."

There's an autism researcher on there, I wonder if the male:female ratio in diagnosis can be solved by all identifying as female (or identifying out of having ASD)?

All proving the point of the initial letter.
People hounded from their jobs for thinking the wrong thing. Absolutely disgusting

But...the counter letter doesn't really say anything! It's just..let's all be nice and inclusive and use preffered pronouns. The last one didn't either (can't remember which paper). The 'rebuttal' letters can't say anything more concrete or they'd help lots more people peak!

That's part of the reason that many GC women get 'the look' when trying to explain to peopke with no idea. They have something concrete, definite to say, it is about women, the opposite is just mushy, pleasant feelings and play nice!

This week I tried to explain to a local candidate (our local elections were deleyed) and he just rolled his eyes... I know him so I stopped him and said "THAT reaction is why your wife, daughter and granddaughters will have to share their changing rooms, get naked, with men"

He has since spoken to his daughter who told him what a prat he was and that he needs to get his head around his party's take on what a woman is (yes, she is a GC friend).

Some needs to challenge Stonewall.
Their trans board need investigating and their spending and promotion of trans above LGB needs challenged.
They even employ the cotton ceiling workshop organiser?

Just posted this on the other thread but the counter to the Sunday Times letter now has 6480 signatories--not all UK based.

Link included in this report.

www.independent.co.uk/voices/letters/lgbt-pride-university-transgender-students-education-stonewall-a8964886.html

Yes, I have seen that one. I don’t have any issue with what the letter actually says- it just says that we should be kind and respectful to people and also mentions the right to debate. Some of the people who signed Kathleen Stock’s letter also signed that one. On reflection, I decided not to sign the 6000 plus letter as I knew it was being peddled by some pretty nasty people as ‘proof’ that nobody supports gender critical feminists.

I will always be tolerant to students and colleagues. I know that some on here will disagree with this but, to me, that extends to using their preferred pronouns and names (I very rarely use someone’s pronouns in front of that person so it’s a non-issue actually). I don’t ask the class to go round and list pronouns and I don’t talk about my own pronouns either- the student welfare office will inform us if someone is transitioning or whatever. But I will never, never, never agree that being female is a question of a feeling or that having a female body doesn’t leave women open to untold discrimination and abuse. I am perfectly capable of being polite and respectful without compromising everything I believe in. Unfortunately, that is not enough for these people.

Went through the same thought process in relation to that Pota2.

Perhaps a third letter is therefore required, of people who agree with both and object to the idea thatbthe two letters are in opposition. Might help people think.

Midgebabe unfortunately, that would be seen as transphobic. These people are relentless. Anyone signing even something neutral like that would be opening themselves up to harassment.

Interestingly, episodes like the gay cake case get much more balanced treatment. People accept that others are entitled to religious beliefs etc. But if a lesbian dares say that she is only attracted to biological females, she is ostracised, subjected to protests, harassment, and threats of violence or even death. I think it has so much to do with misogyny. It’s the utter disgust these people feel that a woman would dare have a different opinion and that she should care about her own rights and those of her sex.

More on that other letter here - opinion piece from some of the organisers. They claim to be speaking for the “silent majority”: t.co/MIdxgECCRp?amp=1

It makes no sense. Speaking out in favour of trans rights activists garners nothing but praise in the academy. I can’t tell you how many people have praise the latest member of the Disability and Society journal editorial board to resign for how ‘brave’ she is. Brave would have been refusing to resign and supporting her colleague whose sole motivation is protecting children. So why would all these people stay silent? Maybe most are silent because they don’t actually agree with the vocal TRAs.

Yes, there were 6000+ signatures. Many signed because the letter was framed in a benign way. There were signatures from all over the world and from many who no longer worked in academia. The number of UK academics is actually 15-20 times the number of UK academics who signed. So, why didn’t more people sign it? Most unis had 10 maybe 20 signatures and each of them will probably employ 1000 staff or more. If they were so sure about their support base, why not be more bold in the letter? Say what they really mean- women don’t need or deserve sex based rights, being a woman has nothing to do with biology and there should be no debate over this? If they said that and still got over 6000 people signing, I would be more convinced (and of course terrified).

Given that students urinated on Rosa's door, and others protested Kathleen Stock's speech with the usual misogynist slurs, and given the wider context of hostility towards feminist critics of gender ideology (attempted assault of Julie Bindel) I am concerned about escalating violence and hostility towards this courageous group of outspoken women.

I am concerned about escalation because (a) the trans ideologues are publicly losing the battle of ideas (those on a political losing streak can resort to violence, see M Field and B Johnson); and (b) when rational argument fails - as it has for the 1,000 signatories of the counter-letter - the last resort is force. We knew all of this would get worse before it got better.

Can we at least support them with a petition which could be sent to each of their employers? Reason being we don't want any of these women to actually get the sack like poor Maya Forstater, who was her family's breadwinner and now has to deal with the fallout indefinitely. Their institutions owe them a duty of care in terms of standing up for them to de-escalate hostility against them, and in terms of protecting their academic freedom.

I would really like to stick up for these GC academics before any cowards in their universities ham-fistedly try to solve the problem by scapegoating them.

We need them to hold the line, on all our behalfs. What they are doing is considerable.

Thoughts?

There's something a bit odd about this letter. There are a few of the social sciency types you'd expect but overall the signatories seem far more skewed towards STEM researchers than I'd have expected.

I'm pleased to learn the Stonewall Diversity Champions programme has not been a barrier to the academic freedom of The Alan Turing Institute, British Antarctic survey, British Geological Survey, Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Culham science Center for Fusion Energy, Francis Crick Institute, Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, Institute of Physics, Institute of Physics and Engineering in Medicine, Institution of Mechanical Engineers, The Met Office, Natural History Museum, The Royal Institution, The Royal Society, Science and Technology Facilities Council, Science Museum Group, Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre, Society of Glass Technology, South East Physics Network, UK Atomic Energy Authority, Science and Technology Facilities Council, Rutherford Appleton Laboratory space and the Wellcome Sanger Institute.

Pleased but not surprised

Rather than a petition, I’d encourage you to write to each signatory. I know this means a lot. And ask them if they’d be ok with you writing to the VC of their university, expressing your concern and support for academic freedom. Some might not, so best to ask. Very few people bother to write and it does have an impact.

I know one of the signatories, not well, we work in the same building but different employers but we nod at each other when we meet somewhere.
She (just checked, this seems to be her preferred pronoun) is very active for women in STEM, went on some high profile women only research event a few years back, gives seminars/holds discussions about women in science quite often. Interestingly, she is the only signatory from her organisation that I can see on the list. I would have thought she would forward it to her colleagues. I will scout out if she did.

I just realised this letter was started by this group:

www.tigerinstemm.org/

That's why there are so many STEM signatories.

OF COURSE there won't be much impact on your academic freedom from Stonewall BS if you work in the hard sciences.

This is virtue signalling from largely unaffected people.