Warwick University and Stonewall

[Igneococcus]

So much energy spent on rising in the equality index:

www.thetimes.co.uk/article/62d2c5a8-48c1-11ec-9969-911e63457092?shareToken=f53b6e05fb469f07c6b7e3537b2cde6f

It's a shame they haven't put as much thought into keeping female students safe

“the LGBTQUA+ community. It said the abbreviation stands for “lesbian, gay, bi+, trans, queer, undefined (for those who are questioning or who choose not to define their sexual orientation, in the latter case some individuals may also use the word queer), asexual/aromantic”

Wow. The “U” is quite a tell. This crazy ideology is all about defining people in categories and keeping them there.

“You’re a girl who likes football? You’re really a boy! Quick - to the mastectomy clinic!”

The U has taken the place of the I. Having had their medical condition appropriated for the purposes of a political ideology, I wonder what they think about now having been re-defined as "undefined"? How dehumanising is that?

But surely the mix of letters signifies a common group of people who are marginalised, discriminated against and vulnerable and therefore needs rights and allies and protection? How can you need those things if no one knows you are those things???

@123ZYX

It's a shame they haven't put as much thought into keeping female students safe

Or just students in general after the stabbing in halls there this week

Warwick Uni seems to have lost the plot

@123ZYX

It's a shame they haven't put as much thought into keeping female students safe

Precisely, 123XYZ . Where is the allyship programme for women:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48366835 (2019 rape chat scandal)

thetab.com/uk/warwick/2020/12/16/warwick-uni-allows-student-who-admitted-to-sexual-misconduct-to-stay-on-campus-37857 (2020)

www.itv.com/news/central/2021-05-18/university-of-warwick-sit-in-protest-over-sexual-misconduct-on-campus-enters-ninth-week (this year)

@123ZYX

It's a shame they haven't put as much thought into keeping female students safe

They haven't just not done this; it is not a sin of omission. They are actively working against keeping women safe by adopting Stonewall's demands.

They haven't just not done this; it is not a sin of omission. They are actively working against keeping women safe by adopting Stonewall's demands.

I suppose it could have been worse. Relabelling single occupancy loos as just 'toilet' isn't necessarily a bad thing. The implication is that others have been left as single sex, though whether that's actually respected now there is 'third space' provision is another matter.

Interesting comment. Have the Times tightened up on commenters?

ItsRaining Hasn’t the experience of Reddit shown that the real power to online commentary lies with moderators? If you silence those with concerns it’s so much easier to claim either no one cares or those that do care are a minority.

Also, Warwick has recently distributed pronouns badges, ran a survey managed by Stonewall, and has a page on ‘queering the university’. Now this Times article explains why.

Given the recent criticisms of Stonewall and loss of high profile diversity champions, perhaps there’s a push to rapidly disseminate its message as fast as possible through remaining partners?

I came to comment about the "Undefined" label, surely they have completely jumped the shark now.

The entire world population fits under LGBTQUA+ if the U is undefined.

When will the LGB people who support this Stonewall type stuff realise that they have been marginalised within their own movement which has become so wide as to be meaningless.

It would be like BLM championing the rights of white people because all races matter, all lives matter.

@MintMe

But surely the mix of letters signifies a common group of people who are marginalised, discriminated against and vulnerable and therefore needs rights and allies and protection? How can you need those things if no one knows you are those things???

This sounds well intentioned.

However, all those letters are about sexual orientation, sexual preferences. Who they want to have sex with or not have sex with. And what I see with DC’s friends etc is this unceasing and endless focus on their sexuality at earlier and earlier ages.

More worryingly, what’s happening is a conflation of their sexual orientation with their identity full stop. Maybe it’s just our area/DC’s school but every other aspect of identity is subordinated to ruminating on which letter represents them, which letter dominates. The anxiety these discussions provoke is heart breaking. No space or freedom or time to just be.

Plus, whilst LGBT have been / still are vulnerable, how are those ‘undefined’ marginalised or discriminated against? Surely by definition this is not possible?

All of this is aIded and fully abetted by well meaning adults (like you?) and a social media ruthlessly intent on prioritising content with extreme emotional content.

Have the Times tightened up on commenters?

ItsRainingProstateOwners a year or two back The Times handed moderation to this outfit:

www.openweb.com/moderation-and-safety/

We actively incentivize and nudge users to be positive contributors. The more civil they are, the larger their reach and influence — creating a virtuous cycle of positive engagement.

Since that time many gender critical commentators have falling away. I've stopped commenting, even with a relatively innocuous style about 50% of my comments were getting deleted. It's odd that with The Times having a commitment to free speech, and free speech in this area particularly, they're enabing the silencing of dissent.

I noticed when I left home this morning that one of the most popular comments was from an Andy Pontin, who noted that he hadn't seen Josephine March's comments recently. He wondered what had happened to her, as she always gives (gave) such knowledgeable answers.

I came back this evening, and I see that that comment has been deleted! Along with many others, of course. What a joke!

DS was considering Warwick. God help us.

I've had the same problem with the Times. I said this in a post along with another one. The post was passed but the comment about restrictions wasn't

I’ve unsubscribed from Warwick’s alumni association telling them why.

If I was interviewing staff these days, a fresh Warwick graduate would be viewed with suspicion. Would the be an insufferable brat? Would they be demanding mixed wax facilities? Asking for days off to hide under the bed if someone genders them (let alone misgender a them). What else would they be demanding as their god given right as a overindulged young person?

"Undefined". That'll be me then as I refuse to have a "gender" and am definitely not a "cis-woman"

"People should be introduced as “they” until they voice their pronouns."

I can't see this being very popular with non-binary people. It'll mean the pronoun "they" will end up as the default pronoun and how can they feel special if a bunch of "cis" people are also referred to as they.

That would offend me. I’m not the most feminine person on the planet but the basically say ‘I can’t even begin to guess your sex’ is a bit of a piss take.

Wow. The “U” is quite a tell. This crazy ideology is all about defining people in categories and keeping them there.

This. It says it all.

"Undefined". That'll be me then as I refuse to have a "gender" and am definitely not a "cis-woman"

Indeed. Me too.

We actively incentivize and nudge users to be positive contributors. The more civil they are, the larger their reach and influence — creating a virtuous cycle of positive engagement.

Ugh, so sinister. "Civil", "virtuous" and "positive" as defined by them, obviously.

What I find the most bizarre about "non-binary, agender, undefined" etc is that no one needed any of those "categories" before gender ideology was a thing.

Surely all those things are just "bog standard boring human"?