Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Jess de Wahls

870 replies

Mollyollydolly · 16/06/2021 23:34

The Royal Academy have removed Jess' work from their shop due to a handful of complaints that she's 'transphobic'. If you want to support Jess her website is here.
www.jessdewahls.com
So sick of these utterly craven organisations. I hope she has a legal case against them for discrimination.

Jess de Wahls
OP posts:
Thread gallery
30
ProfessorInkling · 21/06/2021 09:27

I missed KJW but on FB KJW said they were in bed when R4 called and was unprepared. Going to listen back.

BraveBananaBadge · 21/06/2021 09:28

When Katy said they were too busy to go on the Today programme, did they mean too busy on twitter?

Quite, WinterTrees... it's the Today Programme ffs. In normal circs, any organisation would drop anything, immediately to make sure a spokesperson was on. That the RA haven't, and TRAs are trying to imply it's of no importance to deal with, is insane.

Also their idea of what they consider 'the right questions' from an interviewer is very telling as well.

JoodyBlue · 21/06/2021 09:31

I've just read Jess 2019 blog post for the first time. It is as succinct as it needs to be while outlining the current issues. Really good summary to share to people asking what the issues are. Thought I would repost a link here as might be useful www.jessdewahls.com/blog

Awkwardy · 21/06/2021 09:32

"Many more trans commentators are using the same lines of a storey I know nothing about. Very odd that they're all so isolated from this one particular piece of news."

Pink News knew about it...www.pinknews.co.uk/2021/06/18/royal-academy-arts-jess-de-wahls-transphobia-backlash/

Has the TRAverse stopped reading Ben's nonsense?

Ekofisk · 21/06/2021 09:33

Katy Jon Went - a non-binary transgender person, and (despite doing the interview on the hoof and getting the Equality Act PCs wrong) was at least reasonable and up for a debate.

AntiSocialDistancer · 21/06/2021 09:39

"I don't exist to validate other people's idea of themselves" Jess de Wahls

Perfection!

NoTruckWithFrontedAdverbials · 21/06/2021 09:39

“dropping an artist I've only just heard of, called Jess de Wahls.' The 'only just heard of' letting us know how insignificant Fox thinks Jess is.

Many more trans commentators are using the same lines of a storey I know nothing about”

Yes, I felt that Katie Jon had a party line. That this is the new party line is a sign of great progress!

Nettie434 I do take your point but my “briefly famous trans woman” friend declined all interviews which were not about her personally/ where she lacked all expertise because she felt it would be disrespectful to listeners do otherwise. If I told you some of the topics she was asked to opine on you would think I was pulling your leg

WinterIsGone · 21/06/2021 09:40

In my eyes, good on KJW for going on, whatever that person's views.

Can't believe the RA can cause all this, and then (some days later) not be up for going on Today to defend/explain its actions.

merrymouse · 21/06/2021 09:43

TRAs are trying to imply it's of no importance to deal with, is insane.

Whether or not we agree with them, the question is not whether TWAW, but whether an art gallery should be censoring an artist for saying that they aren't.

Honestly, TRAs probably don't care that much whether de Wahls' work is stocked in the RA shop, given that they claim not to have heard of her, and this decision probably doesn't have much bearing on their lives either way.

However, the RA may very much regret declaring a policy that the general public (wherever they may live) may dictate whose work can be displayed if they perceive it to be offensive.

Ekofisk · 21/06/2021 09:46

The RA Twitter account has limited itself to likes for sketch club contributors since it got ratioed on the Day 3: "Draw something you would think but not say." tweet.

JoodyBlue · 21/06/2021 09:46

@Ekofisk

Katy Jon Went - a non-binary transgender person, and (despite doing the interview on the hoof and getting the Equality Act PCs wrong) was at least reasonable and up for a debate.
Agreed. But there were a couple of points that stood out as ill thought through. One that being "gender critical is an ideology, it is just as much an ideology to be anti it....." I don't understand this. How is rejecting an idea an ideology in itself?

Also "sex is a little bit more complicated than the simplicity of male and female" as a broad statement. So this needs to be evidenced.

But at least it was a more discursive approach than I have ever heard before on R4.

FricasseeTurnips · 21/06/2021 09:52

KJW declared gender identity was a protected characteristic under the Equality Act - and also that sex was not binary, just like gender. Without challenge from the interviewer.

Manderleyagain · 21/06/2021 09:58

I missed jess's interview, but heard the one with Katie, but not quite all the way till the end. I agreed with a fair bit of what she said. But most importantly she was of the view that different views can be put forward, and gender is up for discussion. So I was pleasantly surprised when I realised I was listening to what was supposed to be the counter balance to jess. If the trans rights movement was led and heavily influenced by people with that view we wouldn't be in half of the mess we are in now.

BraveBananaBadge · 21/06/2021 09:58

I agree merrymouse, wasn't clear in my meaning there - I meant more that they clearly don't see the Today Programme, (like it or not) a flagship news show in the UK, as an outlet to prioritise, or recognise its gravitas or reach. It's a willing ignorance from the Twitterati that's very off putting.

Although true the issue is the censorship and not what a random token trans person thinks.

Manderleyagain · 21/06/2021 10:09

@bastardmonkfisher

I'm v senior in a comms role and I've spent the weekend advising my board and exec committee on how we are going to avoid getting caught out in this way (easy - we are dumping stonewall, checking the legal language of every single policy and we are protecting women's sex based rights).
Do you think it would be worthwhile for organisations to have a 'no no platforming' policy? I have a recollection that the co op has a free speech advertising policy (which was voted for in an agm) and that's why they were able to back track on withdrawing advertising from the spectator. It was against their own policy.

If organisations had an up front position - we will not withdraw an arrangement with anyone (advertising, stocking products, an article agreed to be published, a job offer, a place on a panel etc etc) because of complaints about opinions they have expressed elsewhere, as long as the speech is lawful. Or, is lawful and is protected by the European convention. Then the organisation doesn't have to make any public assessment of a specific opinion. It doesn't mean they have to host speech that they don't agree with, but that they won't sever a relationship because of lawful speech elsewhere. If enough institutions did that the complaint mobs would get nowhere.

Gasp0deTheW0nderD0g · 21/06/2021 10:14

Katyjon's pinned tweet.

I don't have #pronouns in my bio or email sig as they/I am complex. I like #they, am content with #she, and tolerate short bursts of #he because #gender can be confusing for the wearer and observer. Not taking offence helps but I support respecting and asking others theirs. (1)

I have a sense from a brief look at Twitter that many of the usual suspects were contacted, possibly only this morning, and said no, so no wonder Katyjon hadn't had time to do any background reading. Probably only got about five minutes' notice of the interview. A far more moderate voice than many.

It's always interesting hearing transpeople interviewed on the radio. Transwomen very rarely sound female. Transmen often do sound very male if they've taken testosterone for any length of time.

YellowFish12 · 21/06/2021 10:33

I would be interested in knowing what the spilt is of transwomen interviewed on the radio / TV / news versus transmen?

I suspect there are a lot more TW than TM but have no hard evidence to back that up?

I guess freddie is quite vocal in the guardian but I haven't seen too much from other TM?

RoyalCorgi · 21/06/2021 10:35

Can't believe the RA can cause all this, and then (some days later) not be up for going on Today to defend/explain its actions.

Best guess is that the RA is currently in full meltdown, with furious arguments raging about whose fault this is and what they should do now.

DialSquare · 21/06/2021 10:45

@AntiSocialDistancer

"I don't exist to validate other people's idea of themselves" Jess de Wahls ---

Perfection!

I hope she turns this quote into one of her artworks.
RedDogsBeg · 21/06/2021 10:58

"I don't exist to validate other people's idea of themselves"
Jess de Wahls

That needs to be repeated and stated at every opportunity, it needs to be plastered in mile high letters everywhere.

Perfect and unarguable.

merrymouse · 21/06/2021 11:14

@RedDogsBeg

"I don't exist to validate other people's idea of themselves" Jess de Wahls

That needs to be repeated and stated at every opportunity, it needs to be plastered in mile high letters everywhere.

Perfect and unarguable.

Agree - and this is at the core of the disagreement.

The GRA was written to protect the right to privacy (with some notable exceptions e.g. sport). It was not written because there is any general right to have identity validated, or a need for the state to classify innate identity.

NoTruckWithFrontedAdverbials · 21/06/2021 11:38

"Best guess is that the RA is currently in full meltdown, with furious arguments raging about whose fault this is and what they should do now."

.... someone needs to write a radio play detailing it .... :)

BraveBananaBadge · 21/06/2021 11:50

@RoyalCorgi

Can't believe the RA can cause all this, and then (some days later) not be up for going on Today to defend/explain its actions.

Best guess is that the RA is currently in full meltdown, with furious arguments raging about whose fault this is and what they should do now.

That still really doesn't explain why they've not even put anything out to even say they'll make a full statement as soon as they've clarified things, or whatever. Or given a reason why they wouldn't be interviewed on Today. Or responded to anyone getting in touch via their website or email. Not even the most neutral acknowledgement of any of this to the public, their members, the media, anyone.

They've just shut down and gone awol. Don't think I've ever seen a response like it.

PurgatoryOfPotholes · 21/06/2021 11:55

There have been many times when I have watched a company at the centre of a social media storm and thought, "just don't say anything! Less said, soonest mended".

This is not one of those cases. They made this atrocious decision right after Maya Forstater's judgement, and it's hit the national press.