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.

Still waiting to have it explained to me how I can make myself believe something.

Unless what the person meant was that I can pretend to believe something and go along with it...

Agree with a pp that it’s all part of this “if you’re not with us you’re against us” thing, which does not allow for a diplomatic avoidance of controversial subjects. Thus people become afraid and join in not because they are “believers” , but because they fearful for their careers, reputations and being labelled a bigot.

It’s the Emperor’s New Clothes, but in the 2021 version the small boy gets carted off, told he must educate himself and is given a lifelong police record for a hate crime.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of what you say.

If anything is truly censorious it's that concerning policy document coming out of the University of Edinburgh. It won't be the last of its kind: UCU are actively pushing this line in HEIs up and down the country.

As a PP says, it's good that this is getting some fresh air, because for sure they won't retract it. The only possible way I see that happening is if universities in general receive a directive from central government on issues relating to non-compliance with the EA.

That's not impossible. They are already legislating for free speech and pushing against the practice of deplatforming. The union strongly opposes this development. Horns are already locking on this.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of what you say.

Absolutely correct. The problem is, 'what you say' is being progressively censored, meaning actual freedom of speech is curtailed by the thought and speech police.

Has the actual guidance been shared anywhere?

It's buried somewhere deep in this thread, so here it is again: blogs.ed.ac.uk/learningexchange/wp-content/uploads/sites/1606/2020/09/IADtransandnonbinarymicroaggressions.pdf

I think the Times journalist probably hadn't seen it, as there's a reference to it being seen by the Telegraph. It's much worse than it appears in the article. Some of it seems to be exactly the same as the page on what is transphobia which was removed after an outcry and much ridiculing of the university on social media. This sentence from the definition seems to be pointed at JK Rowling who is a major donor to the university - I wonder how she feels about it:

"This increased transphobia been particularly severe for trans women, who have been the target of high-profile, celebrity campaigns that deny the trans experience and deliberately suggest trans women pose a threat to cis women by distorting statistics of male violence to imply
it is a characteristic of trans women."

Then you get a section on those horrible meanie feminists who are of course acting in bad faith:

"Some people use the phrase ‘reasonable concerns’ as a way to limit the rights of and marginalise trans and non-binary people. This is most common in the arguments about the use of female toilets and changing areas by trans women. While concerns for women’s safety are valid, there is no evidence that trans women pose any more danger than other women. This type of ‘reasonable concern’ is used frequently by trans-hostile groups, such as ultra-right wing campaigners and certain feminists."

And then, being Edinburgh Uni, there has to be something on who you can invite to speak, because inviting anyone who's ever been accused of transphobia will create a hostile environment for trans students:

"Academic freedom and a commitment to freedom of expression on campus are enshrined both in law and in University policy. However organising events with speakers who are seen as transphobic or trans-hostile can contribute to the feeling that the University is a hostile and unwelcoming environment. Given the presence of many trans-hostile messages in the media, it can be particularly distressing for trans and/or non-binary people to see these being apparently sanctioned and approved by University staff."

The way it's phrased doesn't invite discussion, as per the quote from the Uni at the end of the Times article. It's written as a list of things you must and must not do and say.

@VickyEadieofThigh

Still waiting to have it explained to me how I can make myself believe something.

Unless what the person meant was that I can pretend to believe something and go along with it...

Yeah

That made no sense whatsoever

Thanks morningtoncrescent62, I'll have a read.

That guidance is absolutel nonsense, I admit to not having read all of it, but I read enough to discover that I am trans.

If these universities are genuinely interested in equality, I look forward to similar detailed guides to avoiding micro insults for those with other protected characteristics.

This sentence from the definition seems to be pointed at JK Rowling who is a major donor to the university - I wonder how she feels about it:

Wow. That is pretty appalling. Well if she is major donor then I hope she stops donating.

'Reasonable concern' is now couched as transphobia and objected to using a variation on the unsubstantiated 'this never happens' BS (and recording sex offences as 'female' crime is only going to give weight to the bogus statistics they keep touting).

And THIS:

there is no evidence that trans women pose any more danger than other women

is an outright lie. There is no evidence that trans women pose more of a danger than other men. Which is a pretty significant risk factor, all told, and the reason why the 'reasonable concerns' have been raised in the first place. They're really suggesting this is 'far right fundamentalism?' I'm not persuaded they have even convinced themselves.

So 'that never happens' coupled with another pointed dig at JKR and a veiled threat to don your lanyards and shout your pronouns, just in case you might be one of 'them'. More of the predictable same.

@MarieIVanArkleStinks

Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from the consequences of what you say.

If anything is truly censorious it's that concerning policy document coming out of the University of Edinburgh. It won't be the last of its kind: UCU are actively pushing this line in HEIs up and down the country.

As a PP says, it's good that this is getting some fresh air, because for sure they won't retract it. The only possible way I see that happening is if universities in general receive a directive from central government on issues relating to non-compliance with the EA.

That's not impossible. They are already legislating for free speech and pushing against the practice of deplatforming. The union strongly opposes this development. Horns are already locking on this.

"Horns"? Careful, gendered language!

LBC talking about this now. 11pm Sun

@blacksax

What a bunch of twats.

(Can't see that mentioned in the list of microinsults, so it must be ok).

Much needed lol at this

I'm confused as I thought that there had been an agreement (from parliament? I could be wrong) that doing what's described below had been stopped in the name of discussion.

Academic freedom and a commitment to freedom of expression on campus are enshrined both in law and in University policy. However organising events with speakers who are seen as transphobic or trans-hostile can contribute to the feeling that the University is a hostile and unwelcoming environment. Given the presence of many trans-hostile messages in the media, it can be particularly distressing for trans and/or non-binary people to see these being apparently sanctioned and approved by University staff."

Did they mention anything about misogynists, extreme religious/political types, people who want to lower/get rid of age of consent, etc. Or is it just the one group of people in society who must be protected from those who disagree with them?

Yes I thought that para was weird too Warrior. What’s it saying? “the law and the university say you can invite speakers who don’t agree, but fuck the law because feelings”? (But only one group of people’s feelings)

Celia Walden mentions this in The Telegraph today. And Caitlin Jenner saying that transmen competing in girls/women’s sport is “not fair”.

Funny, one of the universities involved was the one I had to eventually leave my job at as they were so monumentally shit at helping me adjust my tasks after returning to work with a severe childbirth-induced prolapse which meant I could no longer lift most things and couldn't stand or walk for anything other than a really short amount of time.

Obviously trans rights and trans people's safety are important but at the same time I don't see them doing much to support their female (as in AFAB) staff and their specific needs. Or their female students with their specific issues either, but that's a whole other discussion that I won't go into right now. It'd be nice if they could try to support everyone. There's some really basic stuff that female staff and students need improvements in that they are just not working towards at all.

@WarriorN

I'm confused as I thought that there had been an agreement (from parliament? I could be wrong) that doing what's described below had been stopped in the name of discussion.

Academic freedom and a commitment to freedom of expression on campus are enshrined both in law and in University policy. However organising events with speakers who are seen as transphobic or trans-hostile can contribute to the feeling that the University is a hostile and unwelcoming environment. Given the presence of many trans-hostile messages in the media, it can be particularly distressing for trans and/or non-binary people to see these being apparently sanctioned and approved by University staff."

The significant phrase there is "are seen as". Edinburgh University, like so many organisations now, used the standpoints principle to reproduce uncritically what a few self-selecting (and therefore more likely to be activists) members of the social group in question had to say. What they had to say was structured around boxing off anything used in public to defend women: phrases like "reasonable concerns" (a "big red flag... used as well in racist circles"), and treating "gender critical" as a synonym for "transphobic".

It is of course deeply irrational, but it's a logical consequence of an identity politics that requires people outside a group to suspend all critical thought in relation to the pronouncements of people inside it. Some would say this mentality tracks back to standpoint feminism (it is no surprise perhaps that some university-based feminists like Catharine MacKinnon - TIRFs? - view their gender-critical sisters as bigots), as well as misinterpretations of the Macpherson principle.