Two articles in the Times (Scotland) today

[Igneococcus]

Should really make two threads for them but need to leave for work in 5 minutes so I'm just putting them here for anybody wants to read.

Glasgow conservatoire:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/sensitive-students-at-royal-conservatoire-of-scotland-stifling-free-speech-says-michael-ferns-nt7tbk5rk?shareToken=7d4ab431319402c809488e64dc418ecd

Kenny Farquharson comment piece:
www.thetimes.co.uk/article/conflicted-by-the-trans-debate-but-im-listening-fb02hc9sm?shareToken=6e101bf0b17beaa0e2f21040345ff9bd

“We will not tolerate harassment or bullying which involves abusive or offensive behaviour with regard to age, disability, gender, race, religion or belief, real or perceived sexual orientation or transgender status”

A fictional piece of work above, so the conservatoire hasn’t suffered from loss of creativity.

Both interesting pieces. First article about Ferns raises his questions that are useful for checking where the power might lie and illustrating the danger in not thinking critically about problems with this.

"Ferns wrote in response to the students’ letter: “Who gets to define offensive speech or ‘inappropriate behaviour’? To have personally offensive speech subjectively defined, without parameters and then institutionally enforced really is a fatal flaw, given that it is inherently open to infinite interpretations.”

The second is an opinion piece, written by someone who really wants to be fair, balanced and thoughtful over the trans issue... but will invariably find the extreme followers on one side do not allow this. You have to fully believe in people changing their sex to be accepted/allowed.

Seeing the most recent Meghan Murphy interview in New Zealand showed this in spades. The virulent hyperbole around Murphy's reasonable, well-thought out views, illustrates perfectly what has gone wrong with this debate. Here's a link

www.google.com/amp/s/www.newshub.co.nz/home/new-zealand/2019/11/trans-activists-slam-repellent-canadian-feminist-megan-murphy.amp.html

Bump,

Agender was invited to debate Murphy on Newshub Nation, but was unable to arrange someone in time.

Too bad that their otherwise opinionated president Tracee Melley, quoted in the article about how society rejected Meghan's views, had that thing on that had been booked for months.

Couple of excellent articles, thank you OP

"The colleague was Sue Innes, a columnist and one of Scotland’s leading feminist thinkers. I had a lovely meal with her, her two young daughters and her partner John, who was something in theatre.

John was unperturbed, having grown used to Susie bringing home waifs and strays. He was a big guy with an easy manner and a shy smile. I recall him gently joshing his girls in the clatter of a cluttered kitchen.

Susie died of a brain tumour in 2005, aged 56, a huge loss. When next I saw John he was no longer a he, having transitioned to being a woman. As Jo Clifford she was, and still is, one of Scotland’s leading playwrights."

And he is conflicted because he finds this person nice, and also admirably creative.

And this is where some of the conflict arises, I believe.

Just because someone is trans, it doesn't mean they can't be nice, successful, smart, political, creative or funny. What it does demonstrate is sexism. They wouldn't be able to insist that thoughts, roles and behaviour are the product of innate sex, if they weren't. And, let's face it, under a patriarchy most people are raised to be sexist. Men and women.

It's unsurprising that when men start to question this ideology, the bit of the jigsaw they miss is sexism. If they had that at their fingertips, they would reach their conclusions a lot quicker and clearer.

I wonder if in the above case, it was partly a trauma response - filling the role of missing 'mother' to his children?

I read the second piece about the man who transitioned after his wife died and who, being nice, middle class, educated and creative seems invulnerable to criticism.

The question I'm left wondering is what kind of nice creative thoughtful man has so little respect for the separate, different, female integrity of his wife and daughters that he thinks he can be female too.

There is a gap in logic/ understanding here and as others have said, the missing part is sexism. The husband/ father despite having lived and had children with a feminist, is blind to the sexist entitlement he displays in assuming he can become a woman by changing the way he dresses and looks and taking hormones. It's sexist male entitlement that has allowed the 'decent' man to transition and sexist male entitlement that enables his 'decent' friend the author to feel that it's okay and that women should accept it.

I'm a white British woman. It would never occur to me to think that I could identify as BAME because I understand my privilege and empathise with the struggle for equality that BAME people experience. I understand that their experience is different from mine. I could not identify as BAME out of respect for BAME people. What is missing from trans ideology and its supporters is that unshakeable respect for women's difference and struggle and an acceptance of the sexism that is endemic throughout the world as a result of women's biology.

Kenny Farquharson needs to be asking these questions of himself and his friend. Why do men think they have the right to 'become' women? Do they not realise the fundamental lack of respect for the separate otherness and integrity of women? Do they not see that in appropriating the identity 'woman' for men they are behaving in a profoundly sexist way?

Excellent, insightful post, thatdamnwoman.