Oxford University dons back trans students’ call to cancel gender-critical academic

[IwantToRetire]

The letter in support of students opposing Professor Stock’s appearance was written and organised by Addi Haran Diman, president of the Oxford University LGBTQ+ Society and doctoral researcher in politics at Lincoln College.

In a statement, Mr Haran Diman said the university had been “captivated” by apparently misleading press reports, adding: “We thank the academics who stand by us - the rapid and massive supportive responses completely overwhelmed us and will embolden our efforts.”

... the letter - signed after the SU saga - states Prof Stock’s appearance would not be “an open discussion or balanced debate” and states “trans students should not be made to debate their existence”.

The letter also insists “disinviting someone is not preventing them from speaking”, after supporters of Prof Stock said she had been de-platformed.

Prof Max Van Kleek, who was among signatories, said it was “critical” to support trans students to counter the “increased hostility, violence, and discrimination” they are faced with.

“The trans movement are not enemies of free speech; they have every right to protest speakers who frame them as anything but our full, valid, equals.”

The dons’ letter concludes: “Debate is essential for a vibrant democracy, and we champion it. But what the discourse needs now is more civil conversations and less bad-faith argumentation.

“The theoretical debate over gender does not matter - what matters is trans people’s basic living conditions, autonomy, dignity and respect. Freedom of speech matters, but we shouldn’t forget the right to protest. We call on the media and university to take trans voices seriously and treat them with respect.”

Article in the Telegraph republished by yahoo news Oxford University dons back trans students’ call to cancel gender-critical academic (yahoo.com)

(I tried to find existing thread but couldn't - sorry)

It is a weird distinction. It implies the rest of the right doesn't have a free speech problem. And neither does the anti-woke left, or perhaps he can't conceive of the existence of such an animal.

Yes, because Oxford is not transphobic institution.

Jesus what a shitshow, some of these people are in the Biology department - I mean they should all know better but still...

As an aside, I do sometimes wonder what some of these students will think looking back in 20 years, will they be proud of the nonsense they helped to perpetuate. We all have stuff from our past that we cringe about....will they feel ashamed?

In time, this fad will run it's course, and I believe that will happen when there are enough de-transitioners who question why they weren't prevented from harming themselves, and doing irreversible damage to their bodies by people who should know better - then the public enquiries and lawsuits will begin.

And then many of the former supporters of this shit will slink away into the shadows and pretend they had nothing to do with it, but when you attach your name so publicly to something it'll be hard to do that.

It’s the most misogynist institution I have ever been part of.

Those who fight for trans liberation are a persecuted minority who merely seek to receive basic dignity, respect, and the freedom to live a life free from political demonisation.

Oh, if only!

yes @Farmageddon I hope this remains on record. It has real life consequences and some of these academics treat it as an easy win in gaining some kind of career advantage, creating a niche for themselves, or just a sense of superiority. They need to be held to account.

*DerekFaker" · Today 11:37

Those who fight for trans liberation are a persecuted minority who merely seek to receive basic dignity, respect, and the freedom to live a life free from political demonisation.

Whilst pouring rancid piss, punching old ladies and hounding women who disagree, until they're sacked and destitute. Ah, the warm glow of righteousness is threaded through that statement.

It will be like the young people who took part in the Cultural Revolution with such vigour. Most will discreetly cover up and not mention what they did. A few will have the decency to re-examine what they were responsible for. But not many.

It's not theoretical though, is it? Women have been raped after being placed in prison cells with males who claim a female gender identify. I imagine if any of the academics bothered to ask them, they'd think it's a bit more than theoretical.

One of the signatories was the captain of the runner up team in this year's Only Connect.

They really don't seem to be able to discern that her concern and interest is women and their rights

Yes, the thing about this particular theory is that it has spawned an ideology that has gained enough traction to start shaping people’s lives. Either these signatories are dim or incurious enough to think that theory is truly irrelevant (again, terrifying to think this is today’s academia if so) or they’re dishonestly attempting to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes. Nothing to see here. Which is insulting to the intelligence and, more importantly, dangerous both in practice and as a precedent for wilfully believing illogical concepts.

I think most TRAs fall into the former category, but there are certainly those who understand full well what’s going on.

This letter is just 'no debate' with a few more words around it (denying existence... Theoretical debate doesn't matter....cancelling someone's talk isn't a denial of free speech).

Fuck sake, Oxford. You are 900-odd years old. Time to grow up.

I note the reference to theoretical gender. It is a well established event in practical science that while there is no difference between theory and practice in theory, in practice there is.

As an aside, I do sometimes wonder what some of these students will think looking back in 20 years, will they be proud of the nonsense they helped to perpetuate. We all have stuff from our past that we cringe about....will they feel ashamed?

On days when it really seems like it is becoming all too much I think what we should be doing is creating an online archive of all these idiocies, and then in the near and distant future let employers know they can check whether a candidate has been a signatory to a letter like this.

Ditto tweets.

"Suicide prevention" ? Seriously?

Street muggers need to update their routine: "give me all you have or I'll kill myself".

Guardian is hopelessly lost. They might have good intention, but the result is usually nothing more than a load of crap.

As for these university dons, they should join the Pol Pot Club (who BTW had university qualifications ...) instead of pretending that they are there to support "freedom of research"

Pronouns are “suicide prevention” as in: if you “misgender” me, I will top myself - ?

... the letter - signed after the SU saga - states Prof Stock’s appearance would not be “an open discussion or balanced debate” and states “trans students should not be made to debate their existence”.

So trans people shouldn't be made to debate their own existence, even though their existence is not actually what anybody is debating, but women shouldn't be allowed to debate their own existence, because even suggesting that we are different to trans women and should have the right to identify ourselves by sex rather than gender identity is transphobic and hateful.

Have I got that right?

Jesus fucking Christ, these people.

Yes, I very much agree - my experience too.

Fuck sake, Oxford. You are 900-odd years old. Time to grow up.

Yes, but women have only been able to obtain degrees from Oxford for just over 100 years (I believe 1920 was the year this was allowed) - so you could say this burn the witch/ othering of women and their lives and rights is very much returning to historical norms.

"Universities have a duty of care to all of their students. "
Actually, they don't have a statutory duty of care. They only have a duty of care to their staff and employees, and to students under the age of 18. But as usual the TRAs struggle with facts.

We do need to fight this - we need to remember women having any agency at all is not the norm in human history. It can go backwards (look at Afghanistan and Iran), and genderism is very much part of this.

Only men are, in reality, allowed to self ID. Look at all the articles using gender based pronouns for predatory men like Dolatowski but assuming sex-based pronouns for the female victims without asking them what their inner identity is - because their inner feelings don't matter. It's quite a clear statement that the men - even when predatory sex criminals - matter more.

I know many academics at Oxford (and some at Cambridge) and used to work in academic circles myself. My opinion is that women only succeed in the system when they adhere to an unwritten set of rules that they're not allowed to actually advocate for women as a sex class and have to abide by the highly patriarchal / misogynist structures. It's being something akin to Aunt Lydia IMO and the epitome of pulling up the ladder behind them.

I know a few secretly GC female academics who won't speak up as they see it as a threat to their comfortable position (and if you look at the what happened to Kathleen Stock, it's clear this is true). Even though women are being raped in prisons and girls attacked in so say 'women's' toilets by male predators. They usually justify it with a 'I can do more good from the inside'. What they're missing is that their compliance with a highly misogynistic and patriarchal system is making things worse for all women.

They won't face up to the harm they're causing (eloquently revealed by the women finally being given a platform at LWS events) because they're too comfortable where they are.

I know many academics at Oxford (and some at Cambridge) and used to work in academic circles myself. My opinion is that women only succeed in the system when they adhere to an unwritten set of rules that they're not allowed to actually advocate for women as a sex class and have to abide by the highly patriarchal / misogynist structures. It's being something akin to Aunt Lydia IMO and the epitome of pulling up the ladder behind them.

I think this is certainly true in politics, on both sides of the political spectrum.

Margaret Thatcher was the first female prime minister but she famously wasn't a feminist and didn't much like women, preferring to surround herself with men. She certainly didn't do much to advance women's rights.

And on the left, I am particularly astonished by Stella Creasy, who knows what a woman is and what female means when she is experiencing sex discrimination herself around maternity leave and breastfeeding, but is happy to throw the rest of us under a bus when it suits her by denying that we even need a word for what we are.

And I suppose the gender debate shows that it's the same all over really. Famous women, regardless of what they are famous for, have a choice between obediently agreeing that trans women are women, or becoming an object of hate, like JK Rowling.

Have high profile men who point out that sex is binary and immutable, such as Ricky Gervais and Richard Dawkins, got the same treatment? No, they have not. They are free to say such things.

Yes, I agree, notably the same in politics too.

It's why I find JKR and KJK and Kathleen Stock and the Baroness such a breath of fresh air. Women who are willing to unashamedly stand up for women are RARE, though increasing in numbers.

Turns out most of our political and academic female leaders would be in Slytherin, not Gryffindor!

I am so disappointed by my female academic friends, especially those who are established and relatively secure. The way they very determinedly ignore the pain they are inflicting on women and GIRLS less fortunate than them and prop up misogynistic gender ideology in academia. The sterilisation and mutilation of children, which their cowardice is propping up, is the worst thing.

Have you listened to the Witch Trials of JK Rowling podcast?

There's a bit in it where she talks about before she "came out" in support of Maya Forstater where she was like, "I'm gonna do it" and people close to her were saying, "please don't do it" and she explains that she felt she HAD to do it because she was pretty much the only woman she could think of who could afford to take that kind of hit to her reputation, because even if nobody ever bought a single one of her books again, she's rich enough for it not to matter.

I thought that was so powerful. The acknowledgement that most of us can't afford to take one for the team so she had to.