Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

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:
JoodyBlue · 18/10/2022 15:27

@beastlyslumber you have convinced me. But I am still lack respect a little for all those who turn the other way and won't rock the boat. I have felt hugely let down by the very very few people who are prepared to discuss genderism even privately. @Clymene agree about IQ tests totally

beastlyslumber · 18/10/2022 15:42

Joody, I've only been able to speak freely on this subject since I no longer have a teaching job. Over the past few years, I've been subject to a number of student complaints and attempts to get me sacked. I was also 'cancelled' on twitter years ago. I'm still losing friends over this topic, and my reputation is in tatters. It's a very high price to pay. I do wish that people who were in a position to speak up did so - there are a lot of people who are in an excellent position to intervene in this debate but who are keeping their mouths well and truly shut. I think it's probably always the case that the truly courageous individuals are in the minority.

ReunitedThorns · 18/10/2022 15:42

"free speech and scientific inquiry. It goes without saying that this kind of rhetoric is fundamentally against what we as LGBT officers stand for"

I think they don't need to say anything else. That sums it up.

TheBiologyStupid · 18/10/2022 15:47

WandaWomblesaurus · 18/10/2022 10:13

Where are they trying those statistics from?

Are there any statistics about how many "trans young people" have actually died by suicide? If it was anything like the stats the students claim threaten to I'm sure we'd be aware of it.

JoodyBlue · 18/10/2022 15:51

@beastlyslumber I am sorry to hear about your experience. Thank you for speaking up. I agree with you that the courageous speak. But to me also there is a moral imperative when you see those around you punished for speaking truth and you allow them to bear all of the slack. Thinking of all the high profile academics, writers, and ordinary women who have taken so much shit. Much respect from me and thank you.

TheBiologyStupid · 18/10/2022 15:57

This is not an attempt to silence free speech [...] It is for these reasons that we implore Gonville and Caius to reconsider their decision to platform Joyce.

No wonder they have trouble with logic and reality...

TheBiologyStupid · 18/10/2022 16:22

Clymene · 18/10/2022 15:21

I have become a much more of an advocate of free speech the older I get. As a student I probably would have been in favour of no platforming Nick Griffin. But now I think that we absolutely should give to those ideas sunlight. And a university which is a venue for the very best minds (in theory) in the country is surely the ideal venue to expose them for their intellectual paucity.

Ditto. And yet when Griffin finally appeared on BBC One's Question Time it was brilliant because he was exposed to the nation as a complete fool and the exposure did more harm to the BNP in that single hour than trying to silence it had ever done.

Smilelesstalkmore · 18/10/2022 16:38

Dear all,
It has come to our attention that...oh fuck off, no one cares.

Clymene · 18/10/2022 16:39

Yes exactly @TheBiologyStupid.

In this instance though, I expect the students don't want to hear Joyce for the opposite reason. I've not heard her speak a lot but she is a brilliant writer

Smilelesstalkmore · 18/10/2022 16:41

Nick Griffin on QT is a fantastic example of why giving people with shitty views a huge platform to speak is actually a fantastic idea.

The reason they want to no-platform feminists is because they are worried that they will have decent arguments that are very difficult to refute. Or that feminists might say something that ruins their safe space echo chamber, and that they might have to hear opinions they don't like. I mean, it's terrifying stuff!

MoltenLasagne · 18/10/2022 16:48

We had Nick Griffin to speak at a debate whilst I was at uni. It was a thing of beauty. He was allowed to say his piece and then each of his points were calmly questioned and respectfully demolished. He was shown to have no proper arguments beyond Prejudice. Its what should happen for all stupid ideas - expose them to sunlight and watch them wither.

HipTightOnions · 18/10/2022 16:59

This is not an attempt to silence free speech [...] It is for these reasons that we implore Gonville and Caius to reconsider their decision to platform Joyce.

-No wonder they have trouble with logic and reality...

Perhaps they are in favour of free speech as long as you do it on your own in a soundproof room.

BananaGrana · 18/10/2022 17:03

We have to discuss difficult topics and analyse what’s really going on. The race and IQ one is a great example. There are some really robust arguments explaining why any discrepancy in IQ results is not based on race as a biological entity. There is more to fear from refusing to debate.

NutellaEllaElla · 18/10/2022 17:17

I don't wanna start a new thread so while this isn't strictly the right place, I just saw this Tik Tok video of a walk out protest at Portland state university where they were discussing the differences between the sexes.

vm.tiktok.com/ZMFrNDoyK/

It's hilarious as the protestors look so ridiculous and the speakers are acting like adults. What a bizarre world we are living in.

Grantanow · 18/10/2022 17:21

Virtue signalling. Deplatforming is the suppression of free speech and is especially heinous in a university context where all ideas should be expressible and open to debate. The Inquisition deplatformed Galileo.

TheBiologyStupid · 18/10/2022 17:30

HipTightOnions · 18/10/2022 16:59

This is not an attempt to silence free speech [...] It is for these reasons that we implore Gonville and Caius to reconsider their decision to platform Joyce.

-No wonder they have trouble with logic and reality...

Perhaps they are in favour of free speech as long as you do it on your own in a soundproof room.

That would explain their belief that the law says it is legal to hold GC beliefs, but not to actually express them, I suppose.

SmallAnneCordelia · 18/10/2022 17:34

I really want to go to this but I work for the university and am genuinely nervous of the potential impact on my career. Yes, of being seen attending a legal public talk by a published author with views I wholeheartedly agree with. It’s utterly ridiculous that it feels like something I have to risk assess.

beastlyslumber · 18/10/2022 17:53

SmallAnneCordelia · 18/10/2022 17:34

I really want to go to this but I work for the university and am genuinely nervous of the potential impact on my career. Yes, of being seen attending a legal public talk by a published author with views I wholeheartedly agree with. It’s utterly ridiculous that it feels like something I have to risk assess.

I understand the fear, but I hope you go. What can they do? You were interested and you went to a talk to find out more - no sane, reasonable person could have a problem with that.

SmallAnneCordelia · 18/10/2022 17:56

No, but it’s more insidious than that. My job relies on being able to build connections with students and I don’t want to be blacklisted by them as a supporter of wrongthink. Ugh.

ControversialOpening · 18/10/2022 18:14

I’m not saying anyone should be banned from speaking on anything. I’m saying I don’t think some topics should be chosen to be debated

Weasel words

PikesPeaked · 18/10/2022 18:17

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?

These kids have no idea what it means to be in danger as a result of someone giving a speech.

As Jewish student at university in the 80s, I had very mixed feelings about the SU's "No platform for racists" stance. In theory it allowed anti-Israel Arab speakers, but in practice it was very difficult for them to speak because it banned organisations such as the PLO and Hezbollah.

But if you disbelieve the legitimacy of Israel, you should have the right to say so. And if you are spreading anti-Semitic tropes, then the Jews should have the right to argue against that - which they cannot do if your speech is silenced.

But the anti-Israel speakers would say things like "Push the Jews into the sea" and claim that Jews living outside Israel were responsible for what Israel did, and were too cowardly to go and live there, so the more Jews were attacked the more likely they were to put pressure on Israel to give way.

Physical attacks on Jewish students increased after these sorts of speeches, as well name-calling, and vandalising their belongings and local Jewish-owned shops. So we were genuinely unsafe after such people were given platforms.

Nobody, nobody, is calling for people with trans identities to be harmed.

PilesPeaked · 18/10/2022 18:18

ControversialOpening · 18/10/2022 18:14

I’m not saying anyone should be banned from speaking on anything. I’m saying I don’t think some topics should be chosen to be debated

Weasel words

All topics should be up for debate. Slander and ad hominem diatribes are not 'debate'.

Baaaaaa · 18/10/2022 18:39

Is the Gonville talk open to the public?

beastlyslumber · 18/10/2022 18:50

SmallAnneCordelia · 18/10/2022 17:56

No, but it’s more insidious than that. My job relies on being able to build connections with students and I don’t want to be blacklisted by them as a supporter of wrongthink. Ugh.

I understand. When I was teaching I had a lot of trouble from students. But I always kept to a free speech line - not sharing my opinions one way or another, always giving both sides. Students respect that. The ones who wanted to take me down were ideologues who would have come after me no matter what. If you're a middle aged woman, you're a target.

Catabogus · 18/10/2022 19:12

ControversialOpening · 18/10/2022 18:14

I’m not saying anyone should be banned from speaking on anything. I’m saying I don’t think some topics should be chosen to be debated

Weasel words

I strongly disagree (and you’ve cut my post to change my meaning slightly). In a world where a university cannot hold an event on every single issue, choosing to organise an institutional event on a particular issue suggests that the issue is important, prominent, relevant, legitimate and so on, rather than niche, silly, pointless, irrelevant or illegitimate.

In this context, not choosing a particular topic for an event is very different from banning a particular speaker!