Kathleen Stock interview in Guardian today

[BluePorchAwning]

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/may/22/kathleen-stock-taboo-around-gender-identity-chilling-effect-on-academics

Fabulous article and I'm surprised it's in the Guardian. She covers a lot of ground and has me thinking that an overhaul of higher education is overdue, though I think Universities should take it on themselves to do this not a Government intervention.

It is a good article. Always pisses me off though when they introduce sane rational views held by the majority of people as distasteful and controversial. Bollocks is it. Putting male sex offenders in female prisons is what's distasteful.

Loved this...

"Threats to academic freedom don’t just come from China, or millionaires trying to buy a library wing for your college; they also come from students whipping up a petition within seconds of you saying something and trying to get you fired.”

@highame 'I'm surprised it's in the Guardian'.

There have been a couple of pieces on Woman's Hour this week too. I think the election results have finally meant the penny has dropped for the editors: women and other Left-leaning adults may be scared to state their opinions in the workplace or on social media but will show how they feel in the privacy of the ballot box, which is where it really matters. I'm a Labour Party member but withheld my vote in these last elections and I think unless Labour starts thinking and behaving like a party run by adults, not Viz' Student Grant, they'll be out of power for a generation or more.

I'm a Labour Party member but withheld my vote in these last elections and I think unless Labour starts thinking and behaving like a party run by adults, not Viz' Student Grant, they'll be out of power for a generation or more.

Ditto.

There are very possibly parallels between universities and media organisations. Absence of any links to say a review of the book is a shame though.

I work in HE was on the student side of it and now working only with staff. When I worked on the student side I had to bite my tongue on so many issues as I would have lost my job (ironically I got made redundant anyway so I wish I had spoken up to be honest).

As the customer students had far too much say in what staff could and couldn't say. No platforming was alive and well, so was cancel culture. These are in the majority 18-21 year olds who have the power to destroy a long career in seconds. It's just wrong.

Well that's a thread title I never thought I'd see on here!

She’s bang on about the ‘student as customers therefore the customer is always right’ culture that exists in universities now

Universities seem afraid of their students, it’s utterly ridiculous

Withheld vote here too, though sometimes it looks like too big a mess to sort out.

Off to buy or order her book at a local bookshop.

Not Amazon.

I want the shop to know there is a demand for this book.

I will have the popcorn ready for when the TRAs on Twitter see she's in the Guardian.

My DS is studying at a London university and they who are indoctrinating the students with lecture after lecture on "being an ally", etc. Several on his course have become trans since being there and there is no way in a million years that anyone can speak out. DS was actually confronted in public by a visiting lecturer for reading the Jordon Peterson book. DS held his own!

Withheld vote here too. Never not voted before.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I will have the popcorn ready for when the TRAs on Twitter see she's in the Guardian.

Expecting a big tantrum from The Guardian's US staff too.

Saw this, which made me laugh.

It's terrifying. It's pretty much known, I think, that I am 'out'. What disturbs me is that this is seen simply as a phobia, a mistaken belief, or a failing when in fact it is a position based on the evidence as I interpret it. The evidence does not seem to matter anymore.

I think it's good insomuch as it's there at all but I also think it's very guarded and that the writer is very careful to keep her distance. E.g. she states at the end: 'Stock says she has suffered online abuse' which I thought was an awkward way of phrasing it - wouldn't a journalist normally have asked more about that or even have gone online to look for themselves?
I'd also have been more impressed if it wasn't hidden away in the education section.

@SpindleWhorl

I'm a Labour Party member but withheld my vote in these last elections and I think unless Labour starts thinking and behaving like a party run by adults, not Viz' Student Grant, they'll be out of power for a generation or more.

Ditto.

There's a website I go on - I won't say which one, but generally the people on there are fairly left wing, mainly london. Mainly male, but a fair few women.

There was a discussion about labour and what it needs to do to gain power. The trans issue came up in passing and only two people were gender critical. A long standing woman poster who said she believes in sex based rights and expects to get banned for saying it (she wasn't, but she was a good girl who knew her place and posted no further); and me who made a few posts and quickly got banned. A literal discussion of labour party electability and they refused to enter a discussion about how some people believe that women have sex based rights and find it hard to support a party which doesn't.

Maybe it's the beginning of a Peters-in-the-loo campaign by the Guardian, proving that they're relevant in the 21st century.

Obviously, it represents a spot of day-light that the piece was even in the Guardian, but still found it mealy mouthed and too intent on trying to placate to be a good piece of journalism.

There's a website I go on - I won't say which one, but generally the people on there are fairly left wing, mainly london. Mainly male, but a fair few women.

There was a discussion about labour and what it needs to do to gain power. The trans issue came up in passing and only two people were gender critical. A long standing woman poster who said she believes in sex based rights and expects to get banned for saying it (she wasn't, but she was a good girl who knew her place and posted no further); and me who made a few posts and quickly got banned.

Name changed for this, obviously.

That was me. I withdrew from that discussion because IMO it was being stirred by a troll, but as a result of posting I had a really good, respectful offline chat with one of the "other side" so despite the shouting down by a couple of loud voices I'm pretty glad with how it went.

One of the most shocking things I read recently was by Howard Beckett, the left (!) candidate to succeed Len McCluskey: "Evil Transphobia has no place in the movement. That some Labour MPs openly flaunt their transphobic credentials causes unspeakable pain to a part of our community already marginalised. Always stand shoulder to shoulder with the oppressed. Never the oppressor."

It got me thinking about false consciousness and performative stances: how can someone who declares himself on the side of the oppressed stand against women who dare to raise concerns about men self-identifying as women?

Then I also read his apology about Priti Patel - where he repeatedly misidentifies two Sikh migrants as Muslim: "Priti Patel message on Eid al Fitr is to deport Muslim refugees"; "I was angry to see Muslim Refugees being deported on the morning of Eid Al Fitr". This is akin to misidentifying them as Pakistani (or mistaking Samuel L Jackson for Laurence Fishbourne), and was basically...racist while crowing his performative anti-racist credentials.

@OneTimeBurnerName

There's a website I go on - I won't say which one, but generally the people on there are fairly left wing, mainly london. Mainly male, but a fair few women.

There was a discussion about labour and what it needs to do to gain power. The trans issue came up in passing and only two people were gender critical. A long standing woman poster who said she believes in sex based rights and expects to get banned for saying it (she wasn't, but she was a good girl who knew her place and posted no further); and me who made a few posts and quickly got banned.

Name changed for this, obviously.

That was me. I withdrew from that discussion because IMO it was being stirred by a troll, but as a result of posting I had a really good, respectful offline chat with one of the "other side" so despite the shouting down by a couple of loud voices I'm pretty glad with how it went.

I presume I am said "troll". If by troll you mean "posting pretty much what you believe in order to point out to people who support labour that women's rights might negatively affect their electability, in a thread about labour electability," then you're right. I am glad you had a constructive offline discussion, but I'd like to see the issues discussed openly.

I don't know if you recall but the first time I was banned from that site it was for objecting to a commonly used disability-originated slur (or rather refusing to let the issue lie, because I believe that standing up for what is right is more important than gaining respect from an intolerant group.

@JediGnot

Ah right, I didn't mean my post to be a dig at you (didn't know which poster you were, obvs I realise now), just to explain why I didn't think that conversation was worth pursuing. I didn't mean to offend you and accept you were posting in good faith.

And sorry if my contributions to the thread were unhelpful... but I genuinely think the points need making (especially in the context of a debate about labour electability) and there is simply nothing one can say or ask without getting accused of bigotry (and trolling).

Take care and here's to trans rights and women's rights.