University staff given list of banned 'microinsults' they cannot say to trans people

[ChristinaXYZ]

From the Telegraph. the last para make you want to weep -

A Newcastle University spokesman said: "We want our campus to be a welcoming and safe place for everyone who studies, works or visits here, regardless of gender, race, class, age or disability."

But it would seem they are not bothered about making people feel welcome regardless of sex, as they don't even mention it.

(for the person who doubts that sexual assaults are occurring in large numbers at universities.)

That's fine i mean the context was obvious it wasn't meant as hit as it would not have made any sense!

@allmywhat

(for the person who doubts that sexual assaults are occurring in large numbers at universities.)

There is a huge difference between sexual assault and rape though (not that I'm condoning it).

And I'd still be interested to see stats for this year.

Chinned is slang for hitting someone for most people in the UK. In fact it is a good illustration of why universities need to lenient over speech and free speech as what is fine in the US is racist in the UK and vice versa even though we have the same language. Some teenagers in the UK spend so much time on US websites and social media they also learn US language not British English.

Universities need to allow much more freedom and move right away from cancel culture. If people are too weak to hear an opposite point of view perhaps they are better off not in the cut and thrust of debate in an academic environment.

@Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g

I wonder how far back in human history this kind of totalitarianism goes. Off the top of my head, I can think of lots of examples in the 20th century: Stalinism, 1984 (OK, it's fictional, but my god, the prescience Orwell displayed is mindboggling now), McCarthyism, Chinese Cultural Revolution, Pol Pot.

Prior to that, though, there are lots of examples of religions cracking down on heresy with brutal punishments designed to make examples of a few unfortunate people, all designed to create a climate of fear where others dared not say openly what they were thinking. The Name of the Rose covered this, and that was set in the 1300s.

Cults: a few months ago I saw a documentary about Jim Jones and the massacre in his Jonestown camp in Guyana which was truly chilling. He and his acolytes attempted to control what his followers said, did and thought. Far from unique in this.

I don't think you can draw a line between the 20th century movements and the earlier ones. They are all about a systematic worldview and/or ideology, which for some reason is sen to need more than the usual reinforcement from above. (Though The Name of the Rose is not especially historically accurate, for all it's a fun whodunnit.)

I think there are a lot of questions we could ask about the kinds of social consensus needed for any functioning society, and why sometimes there seems to be a need or impetus to enforce that in some ways. One thing that might be relevant is that all of these seem to have a strong sense of adherence creating justice, and non-adherence creating injustice. And possibly a diminished or different sense of what freedom is or is for - not all societies see it as being about choice.

The liberal project, in the sense of democratic liberalism and liberalism around ideas, is maybe kind of a delicate project. I've read some who suggest that liberalism of that kind requires strong scaffolding on things like social behaviour, and other democratic virtues. It's only when people on the whole can self-regulate and there are some agreed sources of social authority and unity that you can afford to have free thought.

This is getting so ridiculous that surely these 'rules' can be used to start tying those that are trying to enforce them up in knots and expose it for the nonsense it is. it's not helping anyone really is it.

If a woman is told that she is in trouble at work because someone has complained about her using the phrase "I wanted to be a boy when I was a child" then the response could be

"why are you trying to oppress me? As a child I was stopped from saying I wanted to be a boy and questioning my gender identity. I'm finally feeling safe to express this view and you are now telling me I still can't discuss and explore this? why is it Ok for some staff to discuss their gender issues and not others?"

If you then got an email from HR summoning you to discuss this micro aggression and be re-educated, could you reply to the email and say

"fine, but I have now decided to identify as a man so please call me Keith at the meeting".

can you then still be 'punished' for saying you wanted to be a boy given you are now a man or was it only a perceived micro-aggression when you were a woman?

In the same way that if your employer requests that you state your pronouns in your email signature you reply and say

"I am still experimenting with my gender identity and am unsure what I want it to be? i would feel very oppressed and exposed if I was forced to choose a pronoun before I was ready to and at present I am unable to choose any that accurately reflect how I feel etc......

There is a huge difference between sexual assault and rape though (not that I'm condoning it)

That's such an ignorant and tone deaf post Butwasitherdriveway. I'm not going to waste energy telling you why as you've already questioned (in a deleted post) whether women are actually being raped / sexually assaulted in universities. Maybe you need to go and educate yourself about the reality of women's lives as you display zero understanding.

Thanks Persistent. I’m still In shock after that one.

Why the argument over chinned? Obviously the MN staff are not literally going out hitting people, and I can't imagine even a poster deliberately looking to derail intended to imply that.

It's not a crime to use words oddly or even somewhat improperly.

It's not a crime to use words oddly or even somewhat improperly.

Try telling that to the universities!

Although in their case, it's using them properly that seems to be the issue.

I missed the deleted post. Probably a good thing really.

@persistentwoman

There is a huge difference between sexual assault and rape though (not that I'm condoning it)

That's such an ignorant and tone deaf post Butwasitherdriveway. I'm not going to waste energy telling you why as you've already questioned (in a deleted post) whether women are actually being raped / sexually assaulted in universities. Maybe you need to go and educate yourself about the reality of women's lives as you display zero understanding.

But there is a bloody big difference!

I'm not condoning any of it.

Or saying any of it is fine.

But....

'women are raped at an alarming rate at university'.

Va

'there is a high level of misogyny, sexual abuse, rape in and around campus including students and staff '

You don't think those two statements are completely different?

I lived on campus for four years in my first degree and two years for my second. I have also worked abroad in camps with a similar setting.

I know of women having inappropriate comments made, but I do not know one single woman through my university experiences who has been raped.

Now, either I'm very lucky or ignorant or there's patterns that my particular (very large uni) must have missed.

Icknow far more women who were abused or raped by someone they knew in their own home ie a partner or a husband.

Now thats an alarming rate.

@YetAnotherSpartacus

I've also never heard a woman use this expression. Ever.

Nor have I.

I have, however, not only seen the statistics on sexual assaults on women at universities and elsewhere but also do not have a single female friend who ash not been sexually assaulted at least once in her life.

To trivialise this issue by suggesting "it's not really that many" - when the context being discussed is the censoring of speech because a specific minority group does not like such speech - is horrifying.

@persistentwoman

There is a huge difference between sexual assault and rape though (not that I'm condoning it)

That's such an ignorant and tone deaf post Butwasitherdriveway. I'm not going to waste energy telling you why as you've already questioned (in a deleted post) whether women are actually being raped / sexually assaulted in universities. Maybe you need to go and educate yourself about the reality of women's lives as you display zero understanding.

Except I didn't say that.

The post was women are being raped at an alarming rate in universities.

I said are they?

That's very different to what you and your comrade are implying.

@VickyEadieofThigh I'm not a man.

But it's not that.

I just think we can't fling around blanket statements.

I live in a city and the stats aren't that high here. Misogny, sexual abuse, rape, assault , absolutely a massive issue. I absolutely agree.

What I am negating is the idea, which was drummed into me when I went to uni I'm a city having grown up in a small town that random women being raped in the streets is a common or alarming occurrence.

It isn't.

And although one is too many, I think it's deceitful to imply that it is.

"why are you trying to oppress me? As a child I was stopped from saying I wanted to be a boy and questioning my gender identity. I'm finally feeling safe to express this view and you are now telling me I still can't discuss and explore this? why is it Ok for some staff to discuss their gender issues and not others?"

If you then got an email from HR summoning you to discuss this micro aggression and be re-educated, could you reply to the email and say

"fine, but I have now decided to identify as a man so please call me Keith at the meeting".

can you then still be 'punished' for saying you wanted to be a boy given you are now a man or was it only a perceived micro-aggression when you were a woman?

I feel it would be "different" for you.

The issue being discussed in this thread is too important to be derailed by minimising and victim-blaming in relation to sexual assault. There are unfortunately posters on this site whose MO is to do this persistently. I'm really hoping this thread doesn't go the same way as the many others they've derailed in a similar manner.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

The issue being discussed in this thread is too important to be derailed by minimising and victim-blaming in relation to sexual assault. There are unfortunately posters on this site whose MO is to do this persistently. I'm really hoping this thread doesn't go the same way as the many others they've derailed in a similar manner.

That would be me.

But I'm not victim blaming.

Could you explain how me thinking the stats are less than claimed is victim blaming?

The solution is easy: use the scroll button.

That was in response to the post about the thread being derailed.

This policy applies to staff alone. And I agree that the 'avoidant behaviour' caveat is coercive and extremely worrying.

YY. It is an attempt to frame women's boundaries even when nothing is said, as transphobic, and control their behaviour to an oppressive level.

Completely agree Mariel.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

It's not a crime to use words oddly or even somewhat improperly.

Try telling that to the universities!

You're bordering on being discriminatory here.

In the place I am from, that word is used in that context.

I'm sure even you with your consistent harassing of me across threads while not actually making many points of your own and then talking about derailing wouldn't take issue with that.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Completely agree Mariel.

Shock.

Can we not pretend that I could write a thesis on women's rights and you two would still arrive to criticise and pick on me as you have since day one?

At least be transparent