Baroness Nicholson 'cancelled' by Booker board

[BaronessSnippyPantsofCroneArmy]

They will not rest until every disobedient woman is purged from society.

www.thebookseller.com/news/booker-prize-nicholson-barr-1207926

Someone with homophobic and transphobic views has no place as a public figure head. I don't understand how that is so hard to get. She isn't 'cancelled' - she can do whatever she wants among those who supports her views - but she has no place in anything that supports equality.

You cannot just cancel people I’m afraid unless you plan on putting a noose around their neck.

FantaOra have you read the statement?

They didn't just remove the positions. They removed the positions under pressure from somebody who read about a disagreement on twitter.

They said:

"We, the Trustees of the Booker Prize Foundation, met today and wish to reiterate that the views expressed by Baroness Nicholson on transgender people are her own personal opinions.

The issues are complex, but our principles are clear. We deplore racism, homophobia and transphobia – and do not discriminate on any grounds."

If they disagreed with Baroness Nicholson's views, or wished to remove the honorary positions, they could have done so at any point over the last decade.

What issues are 'complex'? Why mention racism? Why make an announcement at all?

but she has no place in anything that supports equality.

Do you support equality for women? Equal access to sports on a level playing field, such that women can participate fairly and safely?

Do you consider me "transphobic" if I say equality and fairness and safety in women's sports cannot be achieved if individuals with male physiology are allowed to join in (for instance, in women's rugby)?

@picklemewalnuts

On the subject of same sex marriage, as we have some open minded critically thinking people here, it was another argument about language for some people.

Just as woman = adult human female, marriage = one man and one woman.

That is no longer true, but many people saw it that way and felt that using the word for a same sex couple was illogical.

They weren't bigots, had no issue with same sex couples, but we're concerned about casually redefining a word and the potential legal implications that may have.

As I understand it, this is what the Baroness's comment about it badly affecting women and girls was about.

Its one thing to say we have this social institution, this is it's function, and we think it will work just as well or better if we also include SS couples. Then you can have a discussion about whether there is a need to maintain a social institution that is built around around biological procreation (which has been the main purpose of marriage in societies) or not.

But it's a different thing to say, we cannot have social institutions that differentiate by sex, that say that biological sex roles are significant to how society functions, because that s sex discrimination and to have that is an offence against rights.

But this was always a point that was only discussed in the less accessible conservative media and not at all in the liberal media, which didn't seem to understand the distinction.

Someone with homophobic and transphobic views has no place as a public figure head.

She is not transphobic. It is not clear whether her views on same sex marriage have changed, but even if they haven't, they are in line with the teachings of the Church of England which is the established Church in England. You should be aware that religion is a protected characteristic.

'Equality' might not be as straightforward as you think it is.

ScrimpshawTheSecond

What both lists that you posted near the start of this thread have in common is that women are in the minority. (Not a surprise of course but a further indication that trans rights are men's rights.)

SweetPetrichor

Supporting women's rights doesn't make you transphobic.

And it is shocking that Booker didn't list sexism as something they deplore.

But based on how you judge people I would say you should have any say on the matter as you clearly indicate you dont think women have rights only trans women.

"Literature is open, plural and questioning*

This from their statement. Talk about a lack of self-awareness.....

@SweetPetrichor

but she has no place in anything that supports equality

You do realise that women with gender critical views hold those views precisely because they see women's and girls equality being eroded by the current gender ideology?

You do realise that women with gender critical views hold those views precisely because they see women's and girls equality being eroded by the current gender ideology?

Exactly. Some people are more equal than others, it seems...

New sponsor Michael Moritz who said there weren't more women on Boards because he wasnt prepared to lower standards? www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-03/michael-moritz-amends-remarks-about-lack-of-female-investors-at-sequoia

Well at least it's clear why sexism wasn't on the list of things the Booker Prize deplores.

@poppyfieldsinmay I do see that women with gender critical views THINK they see women's and girls equality being eroded. Thinking something and it being the truth are two entirely separate things. And that is the entire subject of the discussion - valid to hold either opinion - but not to express them in transphobic manners. There's a difference between supporting women only places and cyber bullying a trans woman.

@FantaOra hopefully you are a rare flower in equality. There are bad apples in every basket.

The timing of this points towards a witch hunt. Something that happened in 2013 now being brought up? The vast majority of people support gay marriage. But in a democratic society people should not be punished for having, or voicing, their opinions. It is a truly worrying trend, and the speed at which it is happening is truly frightening.

For anyone interested, the VIDA count of women in publishing is always interesting. By interesting, I mean depressing.

www.vidaweb.org/

It all made mroe sense, of course, when they were counting males and females. They now seem to be celebrating how publications are upping their 'non binary' writers. Ach.

• should add, heavily skewed to US publications, but the London Review of Books has always had a dishonourable mention.

I do see that women with gender critical views THINK they see women's and girls equality being eroded. Thinking something and it being the truth are two entirely separate things... but not to express them in transphobic manners
Yes, just like gender ideologists THINK they are being progressive, but thinking it and being true and two different things.
And, if you follow this debate at all, you will clearly see that any questioning of the gender ideology is labelled transphobic. You know that. You know there is a deliberate attempt to silence and intimidate people. You know it.

@poppyfieldsinmay I do see that women with gender critical views THINK they see women's and girls equality being eroded.

Eroded? It's no longer even clear what you mean when you say 'women and girls'. I'm not trying to be facetious - I genuinely don't know.

Meanwhile who bullied a trans woman? How? What did Baroness Nicholson say that was transphobic?

not to express them in transphobic manners

Find something 'transphobic' on this thread, and we can discuss.

Literature is open, plural and questioning

This statement is about the 20th century. It is an assertion of classic liberal values. Freedom of speech, freedom of thought, dissent. It is incompatible with cancel culture and # no debate. It is incompatible with orthodoxy and hunt the heretic. I think many of us thought the Robespierre faction were an anomaly. They were a fringe group. That there would be a return to classic liberal values. Every day provides another demonstration of how wrong we were about that.

I do hope Petrichor can explain to me how my daughter's or niece's rights would not be eroded if they suddenly found themselves faced with a male-bodied person in a 1 to 1 sporting contest.

@merrymouse - did you mean that for SweetPetrichor ? That's her post not mine.

A woman is an adult human female
A girl is a juvenile human female

Yes, just like gender ideologists THINK they are being progressive, but thinking it and being true and two different things.

Yes, I'm interested in how attempting to embed rigid sex stereotypes that even 1950s society might have found regressive, or medicalising gender nonconformity into heteronormativity to the point young girls are having double mastectomies and on hormones for life because they like the wrong toys or didn't want to wear dresses is "progressive"? Or how silencing anyone who doesn't agree with an ideology about their own lives with threats of violence and rape is an example of a free and liberated, progressive society? Or how behaving exactly like that bastion of liberalism, Iran, does to gay people (by transitioning them) isn't in fact a sign of deep conservatism and embedded homophobia in the ideology. I'm all ears, honestly.