Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Cambridge University LGBTQI+ students: we are not attempting to silence free speech, we just want to deplatform Helen Joyce

211 replies

snurtifier · 18/10/2022 10:11

Helen Joyce has been invited to talk at Gonville & Caius College next week. This has provoked the usual outbreak of virtue signalling and the following response from "college LGBTQI+ officers". It is pretty much the full bingo card. Warning: contains complex mental gymnastics.

Dear all,
It has come to our attention that Gonville and Caius college, and the Divinity faculty, are hosting a speaker event on the 25th of October platforming Helen Joyce. This event has also been promoted by the Fac Bio to natural sciences, medic and vet med students. The title of the event is ‘Criticising gender-identity ideology: what happens when speech is silenced.’
Helen Joyce is a ‘gender critical’ activist, whose work largely focuses around anti-trans rhetoric and trans-exclusionary radical feminism. “Gender identity ideology” is frequently used as a dog-whistle for transphobic sentiment, cloaked in the language of free speech and scientific inquiry. It goes without saying that this kind of rhetoric is fundamentally against what we as LGBT officers stand for, and we are unanimously disgusted by the platforming of such views by Caius and the promotion of the event by the various faculties. Transgender identities should not be put forward as a subject for debate, and their existence is not an “ideology.”

Colleges, and the wider university, have a duty of care to their students, no matter their gender identity. By inviting speakers with inflammatory and bigoted views to speak, the staff involved are allowing transphobia to proliferate within the university, lending it a level of credibility, and crucially, potentially putting transgender students in harms’ way. Transgender people are an at-risk minority group – according to the Stonewall School Report 2017:
92% of trans young people have thought about taking their own life;
84% of trans young people have self-harmed; and

45% of trans young people have tried to take their own life.

Further to this, just days before the event was announced, the Home Office published the past years’ statistics on hate crimes in the UK, which revealed that transphobic hate crime has increased by 56% from last year, with 4,355 reports being made in England and Wales. In light of these statistics, the platforming of a speaker with these transphobic views takes on a particularly alarming salience.

Freedom of speech, of course, is protected in law; Helen Joyce has the right to speak as she pleases. The core of the issue we take is with the senior staff and fellows who have chosen to platform this speaker, which we consider a violation of their duty of care. To invite a speaker whose publicly expressed views include advocating “reducing or keeping down the number of people who transition” both legitimises active transphobia and also alienates and hurts transgender individuals on a personal and emotional level. Furthermore, the fact that this has been promoted to medical students, who will inevitably treat transgender patients in their future careers, presents a further risk to trans individuals not just in the university, but in the wider community, with the potential for wide-reaching and long-lasting harm.

This is not an attempt to silence free speech, but rather, us exercising our own right to that speech in the face of an event which is, in our view, not only irresponsible but actively harmful and cruel to the transgender students at Cambridge. Trans people deserve a university experience as comfortable, safe, and joyful as everyone else, and the University should take an active role in ensuring that – a role that they have, on this occasion, failed to fulfil. It is for these reasons that we implore Gonville and Caius to reconsider their decision to platform Joyce.
If any individual feels unsafe, upset or troubled by this event, please talk to someone – your college LGBT officer, an SU representative, a college or university counsellor, or a charity helpline. We have attached some resources at the end of this letter.
With love and solidarity,
The college LGBT officers

OP posts:
WandaWomblesaurus · 18/10/2022 10:13

Where are they trying those statistics from?

WandaWomblesaurus · 18/10/2022 10:13

*getting

WillPowerLite · 18/10/2022 10:22

I always wonder what 'radical feminism' is. It sets up a divide between 'radical' feminists and some other, larger group of entirely reasonable, non-radical feminists. Who are these non-radical champions of women's rights?

It creates a way to argue against the fundamentals of women's rights while sounding like you still support feminism. Just not those 'radical' ones insisting on their rights.

RoseslnTheHospital · 18/10/2022 10:23

I'm guessing that nothing in that letter was properly referenced, including the statistics they quote and the apparent quote attributed to Helen Joyce.

OchonAgusOchonOh · 18/10/2022 10:23

WandaWomblesaurus · 18/10/2022 10:13

Where are they trying those statistics from?

Re the hate speech one - it's an increase in reports, not actual crimes. Reports include upset feelings because someone put up stickers defining the word "woman".

Wrt Stonewall's figures re self-harm and suicide, I would question the validity of that research given the source. However, I haven't seen the data or any details on the methodology so can't really comment either way.

OchonAgusOchonOh · 18/10/2022 10:25

WillPowerLite · 18/10/2022 10:22

I always wonder what 'radical feminism' is. It sets up a divide between 'radical' feminists and some other, larger group of entirely reasonable, non-radical feminists. Who are these non-radical champions of women's rights?

It creates a way to argue against the fundamentals of women's rights while sounding like you still support feminism. Just not those 'radical' ones insisting on their rights.

The only type of feminists who ever achieved anything concrete in terms of legislation etc are those of the radical variety. I'm happy to be considered radical. It puts me in excellent company.

WillPowerLite · 18/10/2022 10:28

OchonAgusOchonOh · 18/10/2022 10:25

The only type of feminists who ever achieved anything concrete in terms of legislation etc are those of the radical variety. I'm happy to be considered radical. It puts me in excellent company.

Well, quite. Anyone using the phrase radical feminism is anti-feminism. Cuz there is no other kind.

Floisme · 18/10/2022 10:28

Those students probably needed AAA to study there Confused

RoseslnTheHospital · 18/10/2022 10:29

It's been said many times, but radical means changing things at the root, rather than working within existing systems. It's not about being extreme or unreasonable.

SilverSilverStreet · 18/10/2022 10:30

Article in Varsity, a Cambridge student publication.

crumpet · 18/10/2022 10:30

Can’t those who don’t want to hear her just not turn up?

Floisme · 18/10/2022 10:31

Floisme · 18/10/2022 10:28

Those students probably needed AAA to study there Confused

Correction - AAA

Floisme · 18/10/2022 10:32

God dammit, sorry, looks like MN doesn't recognise an asterisk!

Allthegoodnamesarechosen · 18/10/2022 10:33

crumpet · 18/10/2022 10:30

Can’t those who don’t want to hear her just not turn up?

No, because some other people might attend and realise that the alphabet people have neither science nor reason on their side.

and that really won’t do for the new totalitarians.

LiesDoNotBecomeUs · 18/10/2022 10:34

Looking at this, I'm worried about the quality of students at Cambridge these days!

OchonAgusOchonOh · 18/10/2022 10:35

RoseslnTheHospital · 18/10/2022 10:23

I'm guessing that nothing in that letter was properly referenced, including the statistics they quote and the apparent quote attributed to Helen Joyce.

I don't know whether Helen Joyce did say that or not but surely minimising the number of people reliant on hormones for life, minimising the number undergoing irreversible, life-altering surgery, minimising the number of people who are rendered sterile, minimising the number of people who, as a result of medicalisation and surgery, will never achieve sexual satisfaction, can only be a laudable aim?

The medicalised route has its place. However, it is imperative that only those for whom it is the only appropriate route go through it. Ensuring they go through a rigorous process of assessment to determine the most appropriate treatment is hardly transphobic. It is normal for any treatment.

RoseslnTheHospital · 18/10/2022 10:35

I cannot get over how some students believe that some people having a discussion, that no one is forced to attend or participate in could make them feel unsafe or somehow cause them harm. How is our society producing adults with so little resilience and robustness?

OchonAgusOchonOh · 18/10/2022 10:36

RoseslnTheHospital · 18/10/2022 10:35

I cannot get over how some students believe that some people having a discussion, that no one is forced to attend or participate in could make them feel unsafe or somehow cause them harm. How is our society producing adults with so little resilience and robustness?

I know. It's extremely worrying.

senua · 18/10/2022 10:41

Transgender identities should not be put forward as a subject for debate, and their existence is not an “ideology.”
Are we back to 'no debate'. How old skool.

terryleather · 18/10/2022 10:44

RoseslnTheHospital · 18/10/2022 10:35

I cannot get over how some students believe that some people having a discussion, that no one is forced to attend or participate in could make them feel unsafe or somehow cause them harm. How is our society producing adults with so little resilience and robustness?

It's weaponising so called "fragility" to impose your views on others and shut down free speech and discussion.

There is nothing "fragile" about these authoritarians.

snurtifier · 18/10/2022 10:49

RoseslnTheHospital · 18/10/2022 10:35

I cannot get over how some students believe that some people having a discussion, that no one is forced to attend or participate in could make them feel unsafe or somehow cause them harm. How is our society producing adults with so little resilience and robustness?

I learned about this event from an internal departmental e-mail list. The initial announcement has been followed by at least half a dozen replies copied to the entire list, all deploring the platforming of Helen Joyce and patting themselves on the back for "standing against transphobia". These are mostly coming from PhD students, many of whom have a science background.

The irony of opposing "bigoted anti-intellectualism" by attempting to deplatform someone whose works they haven't read seems to be lost on them... I can imagine that anyone within the department who doesn't agree is also going to feel very reluctant to voice their opinions for fear of being completely ostracised.

OP posts:
DameHelena · 18/10/2022 10:51

This is not an attempt to silence free speech, but rather, us exercising our own right to that speech in the face of an event which is, in our view, not only irresponsible but actively harmful and cruel to the transgender students at Cambridge
So that being the case, they could just a) not go and/or b) peacefully protest about it, surely?
Or do they want free speech when it pertains to them exercising it, but they're not so bothered about free speech for HJ and others?

And the hate crime thing, as pps have said, does not stand up to a second's scrutiny.

I do worry for our universities and the calibre of thinkers they're producing.

Imnobody4 · 18/10/2022 10:52

This is the report for info.
www.stonewall.org.uk/school-report-2017

They're entitled to their opinion just as others are entitled to ignore them. I'm starting to wonder what they would do if they didn't have all these ridiculous letters to write.

Catabogus · 18/10/2022 10:56

Is anyone here going to the talk? I am planning to

JunkIsland · 18/10/2022 11:09

Ah, it’s the good old dog whistle argument again. No doubt a meaningful concept, but more often than not now a bad faith insistence that someone who makes an argument you don’t like - but which is entirely reasonable - is actually a bigot just seething with hatred.

Presented with a decent argument? No need to argue against what is actually said - just confidently assert the person making it REALLY means something else.

Repeat that enough times and you get the no smoke without fire effect. It simply becomes common knowledge that Joyce, Rowling, etc. are hateful bigots, so you don’t need to engage with what they’re saying. In fact, to do so might be dangerous. Better to join in the condemnation.

I find it particularly egregious in the trans context, because it translates to ‘come on, it’s not credible that anyone truly cares about women. It can’t be about women at all, has to be a smokescreen.’