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:
SusancallmeSue · 27/10/2022 16:00

I've name changed for this for fear of being outed. I have to deal with Caius regularly in a professional capacity. I no longer feel safe with 'Pippa and 'Andrew'. Not sure how to deal with this.

TheClogLady · 27/10/2022 16:06

Someone on another thread (a student, unnamed institution) has had a positive response from the free speech union in the last 24 hours or so. Might be worth reaching out to them? I’m sure they’ll be very interested in the topic.

freespeechunion.org

SusancallmeSue · 27/10/2022 16:10

The issue I have is that one of the Caius people involved knows I am gender critical because I've told them in the belief that they were sympathetic. This statement goes against everything I know about them and I feel nervous about our next meeting. I feel like I'm living in Orwell's 1984.

I'll check out freespeechunion.

KatMcBundleFace · 27/10/2022 16:50

Have there been a change of personal in charge there? They tried to not fly the pride flag earlier this year.

www.varsity.co.uk/news/23658

KatMcBundleFace · 27/10/2022 16:56

@SusancallmeSue I agree with Helen Joyce when she said about them:
"I think you are afraid of your own students. You know that if you don’t kowtow to the new identitarian orthodoxy, they might turn on you. You’d rather they took out their anger on me, and leave you alone."

I don't think they'll be a threat to you, they are just scared of their mob.

FridayTheThirteeth · 27/10/2022 17:48

The alphabet people don't like people with facts and differing opinions. Biological facts go over the heads of alphabet people.

Yesterdaysleftovers · 27/10/2022 17:56

I have a loose connection with Caius and was horrified by the statement. However, I think HJ is right that it came from a place of weakness and fear, rather than actual belief. This issue isn’t going away, and is now attracting quite a lot of media attention, so if you are forced to comment, perhaps just note that the statement attracted quite a lot of negative publicity and leave it there. If you are worried personally, could you contact the person who organised the event with your concerns?

SusancallmeSue · 27/10/2022 18:29

I agree it's coming from a place of weakness and concern over their own career rather than anything else. It has really eroded the trust I had in this person though and I feel I will have to talk to them about that otherwise our working relationship will suffer. If I can't trust their reasoning processes on this, how can I trust their reasoning elsewhere?

Itisbetter · 27/10/2022 18:48

It’s SO different from my own university experience. Do they not want to think at all?Sad Confused

SusancallmeSue · 27/10/2022 18:50

Apparently not @Itisbetter.

Laularlatwentynine · 27/10/2022 21:37

SusancallmeSue · 27/10/2022 16:10

The issue I have is that one of the Caius people involved knows I am gender critical because I've told them in the belief that they were sympathetic. This statement goes against everything I know about them and I feel nervous about our next meeting. I feel like I'm living in Orwell's 1984.

I'll check out freespeechunion.

P or A? I have to say knowing a little of the individuals concerned I was a bit surprised at the whole thing — neither are what one would exactly call woke.

I’ve nc for this for obvious reasons, but I bumped into one of them a few days later & made it clear I was really unhappy with the statement. It wasn’t a particularly comfortable interaction; but you know, if pandering to students makes your colleagues think badly of you and stop you in the street to complain, then maybe you should have thought of that beforehand IMO.

Hawkins001 · 27/10/2022 21:54

Itisbetter · 27/10/2022 18:48

It’s SO different from my own university experience. Do they not want to think at all?Sad Confused

It seems odd, it's like these days academics in some cases is more like Disney than true grit of studying

SusancallmeSue · 27/10/2022 22:03

@Laularlatwentynine I've PM'd you.

senua · 27/10/2022 22:04

Itisbetter · 27/10/2022 18:48

It’s SO different from my own university experience. Do they not want to think at all?Sad Confused

Cambridge is one of the few places where you have to undergo an interview to get in. I don't understand how applicants can withstand this rigorous exchange of ideas but crumble at the thought that some people don't agree with them about sex/gender.

Itisbetter · 27/10/2022 22:12

I think it’s part of their idea of “femininity”. A fragile thing to be protected from the storm of a world too savage for them. So far from what is truly beautiful in the female experience.

NitroNine · 28/10/2022 15:53

Athena Swan was meant to be about helping women overcome the disadvantages they face in academia. Of course, it’s now about gender rather than sex - because heaven forfend it be acknowledged that there are consequences to the systematic oppression of women as a [sex] class; or indeed, frankly, that women even exist in that sense 🙄🤦‍♀️

Stonewall have their grubby mitts all over universities @maltravers - Essex is one [in]famous example, as per the Reindorf Report.

PauliString · 28/10/2022 16:09

Mind you, Athena Swan unintentionally(?) led to women academics and medics having the extra burden of monitoring and writing up the Athena-Swan-related admin tasks:
bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/9/e012090

nilsmousehammer · 28/10/2022 16:11

Athena Swan was labelled as being for women and so was intentionally targeted and taken over. As was anything at all labelled as being for women.

oviraptor21 · 30/10/2022 09:42

Particularly enjoyed these comments from the Telegraph archived article linked above:

"Prof Ahmed said: “Senior figures in the University have expressed regret that this debate is even going ahead. The only response to that is to arrange another, bigger event like it. That is what I intend to do.”
It is the latest in a series of free speech rows to hit Cambridge. Ms Joyce accused Prof Rogerson of “intellectual cowardice” by boycotting the talk while Prof Ahmed said it was a debate, not an endorsement.
“Cambridge isn’t a primary school,” Prof Ahmed said. “Free speech is not negotiable.”"

oviraptor21 · 30/10/2022 09:44

There is a more recent Telegraph piece on the issue. I don't have access to it so if anyone can assist that would be much appreciated
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2022/10/29/cambridge-alumni-pulling-funding-college-academics-said-gender/

ScrollingLeaves · 30/10/2022 10:14

I have not read the full thread so perhaps someone else has mentioned this aspect of the Telegraph article already, but I thought this was interesting re the ‘Alumni For Free Speech’ as I hadn’t heard of this organisation before:

Alumni For Free Speech, a new group of graduates founded by two lawyers concerned with the “de-Enlightenment” of British universities, alleged in its own letters to the university that the master’s email may have breached the public sector equality duty by creating a “hostile environment for a visiting speaker with a protected characteristic”.

JellySaurus · 30/10/2022 10:38

The FSU told Dr Anthony Freeling, the vice-chancellor, that Prof Rogerson's "astonishing" email had fallen “far below” the university’s own free speech policy, and “must bear some responsibility for the intolerant and discourteous” protests that “rendered Dr Joyce inaudible at times”.

postcardpuffin · 30/10/2022 18:43

Has anyone got a share token or can post more of the Telegraph article?

MangyInseam · 30/10/2022 18:46

ScrollingLeaves · 30/10/2022 10:14

I have not read the full thread so perhaps someone else has mentioned this aspect of the Telegraph article already, but I thought this was interesting re the ‘Alumni For Free Speech’ as I hadn’t heard of this organisation before:

Alumni For Free Speech, a new group of graduates founded by two lawyers concerned with the “de-Enlightenment” of British universities, alleged in its own letters to the university that the master’s email may have breached the public sector equality duty by creating a “hostile environment for a visiting speaker with a protected characteristic”.

You know, this is where I find some of the approach to protected characteristics leaves me cold. Is it really worse to create a hostile environment to a speaker with a protected characteristic, than one without?

You can start to see how you get into people saying they need safe spaces against anything they don't like because they are x y, or z.

CrossPurposes · 30/10/2022 19:08

Article archived here: archive.ph/uwRft

Swipe left for the next trending thread