Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

GC Academics Targeted for Signing Sunday Times Letter

127 replies

RosaFreedman1983 · 23/06/2019 04:50

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.

OP posts:
CharlieParley · 24/06/2019 09:26

Given that I've been told by some Scottish academics that they got an open group email at work asking all of them to add their name to the list, I am surprised not more of them have signed.

As the letter does not respond to a single issue raised by the original letter, it cannot be said to be a rebuttal. It is a bland affirmation that support for LGBT rights is a good thing, that LGBT people should have equal rights and that Stonewall coming to academic institutions to help support that doesn't infringe on academic freedom.

You'd have to know the background to the issue to have any problems with the so-called rebuttal.

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 24/06/2019 09:32

It’s interesting then that there’s relatively few signatures if it was openly being sent around departments....

worstofbothworlds · 24/06/2019 09:54

I'm one of the original signatories, it hasn't been mentioned at work and neither has the other letter. I'm in a Stonewall institution though nobody has sought to make me go on the training. I may be citing religious/conscientious objection if they do.

My field is STEM but not a physical science i.e. we do deal with people and/or animals and it would be pretty disastrous if we had to stop referring to biological sex. Even so, one of the signatories is someone I work with who got cross that I said some data were not actual science data (they were survey data, I don't think she'd use that method herself in her research and call it science). This signatory is also in a field where biological sex is measured/used/referred to and I have no idea what she is thinking beyond "I must be nice to people".

pinchpoint · 24/06/2019 13:17

Hello worstofbothworlds , and thank you for standing up for academic freedom against the excesses of transgender ideology.

nonsenceagain recommended:

"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."

This sounds very measured. What do you think worstofbothworlds ? Would a personal letter from your supporters, requesting whether to escalate the issue to the VC, be preferable to a petition?

pinchpoint · 24/06/2019 13:18

The signatories are listed on Kathleen Stock's twitter here:

twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1140140371613224960

worstofbothworlds · 24/06/2019 13:36

Frankly I don't think my VC has noticed but personal emails from students/alumni/ae/colleagues are always welcome.

CharlieParley · 24/06/2019 14:05

I wonder if those signatories would have been quite so quick to sign if they had known that Stonewall no longer accepts that lesbians and gays are people who are same-sex attracted.

Stonewall was asked by Women and Girls in Scotland if they could support the following, very benign statement affirming same-sex attraction as acceptable:

Exclusive same sex attraction is a valid and real sexuality, there is absolutely nothing objectionable about being exclusively same sex attracted, and those who are should be able to live their sexuality free from any form of hate, discrimination, coercion or harassment, and are fully supported by our organisation as part of the LGBT community

Stonewall said no. Hardly surprising given that they define homosexuality as same-GENDER attraction now.

AgileLass · 24/06/2019 14:08

Do you have a link for that Charlie? I’d be interested in showing it to some of my colleagues who are professing ignorance as to the problematic nature of Stonewall

CharlieParley · 24/06/2019 14:11

Page 24f. (and full correspondence in the appendix) of the report. You'll find it on this page:

wgscotland.org.uk/

AgileLass · 24/06/2019 14:16

Thank you

Floisme · 24/06/2019 16:01

Interesting discussion unfolding on Twitter. It appears that one of the organisers of the second letter (billed in the Times as 'Dons speak up for Stonewall') had not actually read the documents concerned.

Sorry I can't screenshot but Rosa Freedman is not impressed: twitter.com/GoonerProf/status/1143141116268732416

OldCrone · 24/06/2019 16:07

It seems there are two letters. The Tigerstemm one Pencils mentioned, with 1900 signatures, and the Caroline Pennock one, which is being discussed on twitter.

OldCrone · 24/06/2019 16:26

It appears that one of the organisers of the second letter (billed in the Times as 'Dons speak up for Stonewall') had not actually read the documents concerned.

The letter featured in the Times is the Tigerstemm one, which has 1900 signatures. The one written by Caroline Pennock (who hadn't read the documents), and which has over 6000 signatures, is a different letter which was featured in the Independent.

Floisme · 24/06/2019 16:42

Ah I see! I hadn't realised there were 2 letters. Three if you count the orginal GC academics one. So the reference to the Times in my post is misleading - sorry everyone.

Mind you it looks like I'd be at home in parts of academia with my sloppy grasp of facts and evidence.

CharlieParley · 24/06/2019 16:58

I wonder how Stonewall square their refusal to accept homosexuals as same-sex attracted with their diversity training? Do they inform the attendees of their trainings of that little known fact?

Wish I was on Twitter and could tell Rosa to ask that question.

I just think it is the very definition of homophobia not to accept that lesbians and gays are same-sex attracted. But that is apparently Stonewall's position now.

So all these people signing letters in defence of Stonewall presumably rely on the organisation's reputation as a champion of the right of homosexuals to be same-sex attracted. But they no longer are.

And if Stonewall were to come right out and say, yes, homosexuals are same-sex attracted and they absolutely should be allowed to live their sexuality without being harassed, pressured or coerced to accept members of the opposite sex as sexual partners. And do so without fear of reprisals or being ostracized from the LGBT community.

I mean such an affirmation of their original stance would be hugely significant, because you could then point all those who reject this definition of lesbians and gays to Stonewall's statement and call them up on their homophobia.

AgileLass · 24/06/2019 17:03

The Stonewall glossary is pretty clear as well:

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms

HOMOSEXUAL

This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used.

Pota2 · 24/06/2019 21:22

My god I nearly choked on my tea when I read that. She didn’t even read the fucking stuff she was writing about. The absolute state of it. I an flabbergasted. Caroline, if you are reading this, you should hang your head in absolute shape. Your dumb, hugely uninformed virtue-signalling is actually helping to erode the rights of lesbian, gay and bisexual people. You’d better be really sure that there will never be a backlash from this sort of shit. Because I predict that there will be and your letter and your name will be the sort of thing that people will remember when they think of this.

Pota2 · 24/06/2019 21:23

That should say *shame

Justhadathought · 24/06/2019 21:27

I've gone through the list of so called 'dons', who are from my city's two main universities, and who signed the 'alternative/rebuttal. Mostly quite young ( 20's/30s) and certainly not all 'dons' at all. Quite a few are research and phd students, including depressingly, in bio-science type subjects.

I'm going to keep hold of that list because I think they should, also, be held accountable for what they support, or what they put their names to.

Pota2 · 24/06/2019 21:35

Justhadathought I am also collecting a list of these people. People like Caroline (seems uninformed but keen to collect woke points), but also others such as Priyamvada Gopal, Sally Hines, Allison Phipps, who are using their considerable status and power to actively gaslight and bully colleagues who hold a different opinion to them. This will not be forgotten.

JackyHolyoake · 24/06/2019 21:43

"The Stonewall glossary is pretty clear as well:

www.stonewall.org.uk/help-advice/glossary-terms

HOMOSEXUAL

This might be considered a more medical term used to describe someone who has a romantic and/or sexual orientation towards someone of the same gender. The term ‘gay’ is now more generally used."

Note that Stonewall has used the term gender here rather than sex.

This is not an accidental incident.

PencilsInSpace · 24/06/2019 22:08

It seems there are two letters.

Have I got this right? ...

  1. letter in the Times - Dons speak up for Stonewall - some people, most of whom work in academic STEM, plus a bunch of students, signed to say the Stonewall programme doesn't have a negative impact on academic freedom. This struck me as an 'I'm alright jack' response that ignored the problems their colleagues are facing in the social sciences, arts and humanities.

Maybe we should try engaging with the British Antarctic Survey on the contents of those awful GIRES' books about trans infant penguins Smile

  1. Caroline Pennock's letter in the Independent which reckons that Criticism and critique of policies and programmes that promote inclusiveness, such as Stonewall Diversity Champions, are not in and of themselves unwelcome. which shows that Pennock has no clue what she's talking about. And it has now come to light she is unfamiliar with the Stonewall programme women were complaining about in the original letter. I'm amazed there were so many signatories to a statement that included that sentence about criticism not being unwelcome.

I hope everyone who signed this letter feels able to take it up with Stonewall when they find out their criticism is not welcome after all.

PencilsInSpace · 24/06/2019 22:09

Jacky's back! GrinFlowers

BernardBlacksWineIcelolly · 24/06/2019 22:15

Jacky's back!

Yay! WineCake

OldCrone · 24/06/2019 22:18

Wish I was on Twitter and could tell Rosa to ask that question.

Rosa's on here, Charlie. She started this thread.

Swipe left for the next trending thread