Times article on academia

[SuperLoudPoppingAction]

www.timeshighereducation.com/depth/researchers-are-wounded-academias-gender-wars

Does anyone have a share token?

My priority are the people who are being harmed by this debate, who I perceive to be trans people.

My god, that's chilling.

This person isn't even open to considering the impact on any other party?

No, that quote in context:

'For example, last year, a London School of Economics postgraduate student conference paper described a scene in which feminists critical of genderism “scream for mercy”. The paper then described the potential threat: “I hold a knife to your throat and spit my transness into your ear”, concluding: “Are you scared? I sure fucking hope so.”

When discussing this horrific anti-feminism, some interviewees, including those working on violence against women, would nonetheless still equivocate. As one sociologist put it: “My priority are the people who are being harmed by this debate, who I perceive to be trans people.” “These gender-critical feminists – they are intellectualising [sex and gender], and I think it’s harmful,” she added.'

More on that paper:

thecritic.co.uk/watch-me-take-a-knife-to-your-throat/

And the paper is archived here: (CW)

gi422conference.com/trans-endemics-embodying-viral-and-monstrous-threat-in-times-of-pandemic/

I can't help feeling that Alison Phipps apology is proving all the points made in that article.

“These gender-critical feminists – they are intellectualising [sex and gender], and I think it’s harmful,” she added.'

And there I was, thinking it's the job of an academic to, you know, intellectualise about their subject. Well silly me!

It's utterly bewildering, like they're treating Trans identified (women let's face it) as a sacred caste or something.

I get that some are nodding along out of fear and intimidation, but others do appear to believe this.

I hope, eventually, someone smarter than me figures out how this happened.

As one sociologist put it: “My priority are the people who are being harmed by this debate, who I perceive to be trans people.”'

Yeah .... I guess the 2 women a week murdered in the UK BECAUSE THEY ARE WOMEN aren't suffering much harm.

It's chilling indeed @TheKeatingFive

As a feminist academic, I try to do my bit to counter this. I teach feminist theory & history - old school - and try to introduce young women to their history as women.

In relation to being called a coward about this, I struggle with that. I want to maintain good relationships with my students - that way is better to counter the harm of gender extremist ideology. So "softly softly catchee monkee" as they say.

Luft, thanks for doing what you can. We all do what we can, given all our varying situations, histories, contexts and abilities. I think we need both bold, bald stating of facts in some instances, and more conciliatory approaches in others.

Some of this stuff takes some believing

LuftBalloons - I don't think you're a coward. You do what you can. But there are clearly people going along with this who are prepared to see colleagues thrown under the bus and won't do or say anything at all, even though they know it's wrong. I really believe that there is strength in numbers and the more people who speak out, the better - they can't sack everybody. But I realise everyone is waiting for everyone else to speak out - that's the difficulty.

This is an important part about what has gone so badly wrong in academia. If universities are not supposed to 'intellectualise', then what's the point of having them at all?

Just to use the quote from your post, AmaryllisNightAndDay, we should ask what she means by this being harmful and to whom and if not addressing sex and gender from a factual basis wouldn't be even more harmful.

What is the ultimate reason for the incredible power the activists in this movement have, for the level of aggression they are allowed to show, and for the way otherwise smart people seem to lose their ability to think critically on this one issue?

Sometimes I believe that the ultimate reason is simply that the costs of all the changes the gender identity ideology pushes for fall on only one biological sex, and that's the sex which is expected to acquiesce and to support others.

I think it might all have something to do with that point where loads of humanities and social science scholars be some obsessed with ‘the political’ over everything else. Then started drifting towards insisting that activism and taking political stands were the purpose of what they were doing.

Meanwhile the idea that they might be trying to understand - or even that there is value in standing back and not taking a stance so you can try to look at things from a range of different perspectives - fell by the wayside.

So now actually having any idea clear definition or understanding of what is going on is viewed as a threat to the political position of affirming people’s chosen gender identity. It would be dreadful if academics questioned anything or attempted to think critically because the political position and the activism are all that matter.

What is the ultimate reason for the incredible power the activists in this movement have, for the level of aggression they are allowed to show, and for the way otherwise smart people seem to lose their ability to think critically on this one issue?

I'm thinking maybe we should start a thread to discuss this.

Yes I think that's a great idea for a separate thread.

That Alison Phipps apology really underlines the point in the article that these people cannot even engage with the debate. They must stay ideologically pure and self-flaggelate at any perceived transgression.

I believe she gets nasty messages, including from far right associated accounts. Almost everyone in the public eye involved with social issues does and especially so if you are female and/or non-white. If you get an especially upvoted post on Reddit you are highly likely to get abusive messages. It's the unfortunate nature of social media.

However I don't see how, as a senior academic, being asked about her experiences with the toxic debate can be so traumatising when she continues to take part in and contribute to the toxic debate. She is also failing to see the value of investigating the way social academia is currently structured as a result of the toxicity. Whatever side you take, surely that is a worthwhile thing to analyse?

Also agree with the PP who pointed out that she, as a senior academic with a secure position should not be frozen into complete inaction by a much more junior colleague's 'unethical methods'. Despite apparently feeling traumatised at the time by the interviews, not one of the subjects made complaints or even contacted the mentor until the piece was published with a conclusion they disliked. They also speak of being discomforted by challenging questions on their positions when surely answering challenging questions on your area of expertise is the entire point of being a senior academic?

Agreed. Would you like to do that,TheKeatingFive? 😇

This made me more angry than anything else in the article. These people can't even define their terms and yet they denounce anyone who doesn't agree and try to remove them from their jobs.

"We can't give you any reason to believe this but if you don't believe it you're a bigot". How on earth did this become acceptable?

Alison Phipps is a DARVOmonger extraordinaire. She's awful.

The responses to Alison Phipps's tweet blow my mind. They are talking to her as if she's been physically violated and is suffering from trauma as a result of the research interview.

YY Doyoumind.

Well, I'm genuinely sorry if she's been traumatised by the interview.

"Trauma can be disclosed or ventriloquised to generate further capital in the form of feeling, creating political gain. Being the first to speak out can also have material rewards, particularly in media ‘outrage economies’ that thrive on controversy and scandal."

• Alison Phipps

journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1367549420985852

'Our sanctioned victim status shields privileged white women from accountability in interpersonal interactions and in the political sphere.'
...
'while privileged white feminists deny the relationship between the personal and the political in response to critique, in our own theory and politics this relationship (and in particular, our own personal experience or that of women like us) takes centre stage. This is more than just hypocrisy; it is white supremacy.'
...
'bourgeois white women’s tears are the ultimate symbol of femininity, evoking the damsel in distress and the mourning, lamenting women of myth'
...
'Political whiteness involves a will to power: in the case of bourgeois white women, this was and is often achieved through performances of powerlessness. We exist at the intersections of capitalism, white supremacy and heteropatriarchy, with little control over the means of production (Lugones, 2008: 15) but with raced and classed dominance that requires feminine submission. Like Penelope in Homer’s Odyssey, we fling ourselves on the floor and cry'

All from the article linked above - 'white tears, white rage'

I am a Humanities academic, and perhaps I can shed a bit of light on this. I think for many of my colleagues who have wholeheartedly embraced this belief system, it comes from a place of care for students. They are the ones who would take up, officially or otherwise, roles like 'Student Support Officer', or volunteer for student induction events, or mentoring etc, and would vocally be 'student-centric' in terms of being approachable and kind and flexible etc. They would take on a lot of pastoral care of students, and so are a 'magnet' for students who need it, basically. The last decade has seen a 300% increase in students requesting disability support for mental health issues in my uni (not a typo), and a similar increase (though smaller numbers) of students who identify as trans or non-binary. Many of these colleagues see pronouns etc as caring for students in crisis - being kind, basically. And then, that becomes reinforced by university diversity and equality guidelines which emphasise the 'T' over pretty much everything else, because those guidelines are basically written by pressure groups who come in to 'advise' us.

Most of these colleagues are lovely people, feminist women for the most part, many of whom I count as my friends. But they don't see, or are kind of oblivious to, the ways in which the prioritisation of the 'T' impacts on other students - female students in particular, who - as Luftballoons points out - are not getting to properly engage with 'old-school' feminist theory, because it is problematic. One colleague recently commented that she couldn't use her own book in teaching anymore because she used so much 'problematic' French feminism in it, but expressed regret about it - somewhat secretly, and after a bit of wine - as she still believed quite strongly in that theory.

I no longer teach any feminist theory, and stay away from any 'representation of women' courses. You may say that is cowardly, and perhaps it is, but I had a very bad experience a few years ago when I was accused of being transphobic in a literary theory class for assigning an essay by Julia Kristeva, who is considered transphobic now because her theory is about the female body. My lack of pronouns in my Twitter bio was mentioned by a student in the discussion about the essay as 'harmful'.

BTW, I've changed username for this post, because based on my post history, it probably wouldn't be hard for someone so inclined to figure out who I am, and yes, I am worried that my career would be damaged if I was 'outed' as GC.