Politicians and the gender debate

[ChristinaXYZ]

Why oh why are they almost all in the Tory Party - the ones that get free speech in general and women's right specifically.

Rishi Sunak last night:

"In a rare intervention into a campus free speech row, the Prime Minister told The Telegraph that the vocal few must not be allowed to shut down debate and that universities must support, not stifle, contentious discussion.

He said: “A free society requires free debate. We should all be encouraged to engage respectfully with the ideas of others.

“University should be an environment where debate is supported, not stifled. We mustn’t allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion. Kathleen Stock’s invitation to the Oxford Union should stand.

“Agree or disagree with her, Professor Stock is an important figure in this argument. Students should be allowed to hear and debate her views.”"

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2023/05/29/universities-free-speech-rishi-sunak-kathleen-stock-oxford

and then again this afternoon he quote tweets the above Telgraph article and reiterates:

"A free society requires free debate.

@Docstockk's invitation to the @OxfordUnion should stand and students should be allowed to hear and debate her views.

We mustn’t allow a small but vocal few to shut down discussion."

https://twitter.com/RishiSunak/status/1663543575991435265

Meanwhile Ed Davy and Keir Starmer are really confused about what a women really is and no senior Labour figure is prepared to support the brilliant Rosie Duffield.

For once I agree with Rishi and am delighted that the talk is going ahead. What a crazy world we live in where debate like this is being suppressed? Is it because what Prof Stock is saying is actually the truth they don't want to hear or are we all supposed to shut up and give way to this nonsense? Very disappointed with the Labour party here.

Given that Labour just ran a campaign mocking the Scottish Tory leader for not being able to 'get it up', I'm okay with agreeing with Rishi today.

Free speech has always been a core Conservative value. It is still shocking the extent to which the Tories under say Theresa May went down the genderwoo rabbithole. Some of their MPs are still down there.

But happily nowhere near as many as in all the other parties where they are clamouring for your expulsion as a party member (last Labour Leadership Election) if you agree with scientific fact that humans cannot change sex.

But the conservative party are complete hypocrites. They don't believe in free speech at all. Rees-Mogg's require civil servants to go through social media posts of all speakers at official events and anyone critical of government policy can be banned. So gender critical fine, express concern about refugee children drowning in the Channel and you're out. They launched Prevent which has been ruled, by the court of appeal to be giving unlawful because unlawful guidance because it was so “unbalanced” against free speech. So, free speech is good if you're white, not so good if you're brown.

The Tory party are, yes, very happy to support GC types because they think it's a culture war that will win them votes but they aren't supporters of free speech at all. Just speech they agree with.

I was checking what the Lib Dems think about free speech these days, and luckily, they have "some sympathy" for GC feminists. From 2021:

https://www.libdemvoice.org/liberalism-and-freedom-of-speech-in-universities-69156.html

"The sadly embittered conflict between trans activists and gender-critical feminists is driven by fears on both sides: fears that gender-critical arguments disguise full-blown attacks on trans rights, fears among an older generation of feminists that the ‘safe spaces’ they have won are being eroded. Both sides fear that the other is being exploited by malign forces.

Liberals will instinctively support diversity and the rights of minorities against those who would push back their rights. But we should also have some sympathy and understanding for those who find acceptance of new elements of diversity difficult. We should work to persuade and help them understand the issues."

I think that's completely misunderstanding several things and conflating two issues that are not like for like. For a starters the Civil Service is supposed to be apolitical, no debate, shut up and impliment the policy of the elected government. If you don't like it then you should not be in the Civil Service. If you join you must relalise that for large portions of your career you will be serving a government you did not vote for and may dislike - but tough, frankly. It is emphatically not a debating chamber like a university should be.

With regard to the bans you are talking about wasn't it more that Mogg and co thought that there should be no reason to pay people to speak at Civil Service events who post social media critques with all the nuance of the type of placards held up to Kathleen Stock. Eff the Tories. That kind of thing. Should the Civil Servants hear people with a properly argued range of views if relevant to their work then yes. Should they hear people who are so blinded with anti-Tory hatred that they rant on social media about them - well no I don't think they should do, not at work. In their own time fair enough. I bet Mogg would agree with that.

And in the Guardian these events are described as 'government events' exactly what is unspecified. Rees-Mogg is part of a government and a political party and they are actually supposed to be political you know. So no, they don't have to have anyone and everyone there - why should they have people there who oppeningly hate them?

On the other hand a university should be the very last word in the freest of free speech. Do I believe that the Conservatives agree with this - yes I do. I think they believe it wholeheartedly and not just for votes.

Good I agree

Given Labour no one should talk about this and Lib Dem recent idiocy this is far better

The sadly embittered conflict between trans activists and gender-critical feminists is driven by fears on both sides: fears that gender-critical arguments disguise full-blown attacks on trans rights, fears among an older generation of feminists that the ‘safe spaces’ they have won are being eroded. Both sides fear that the other is being exploited by malign forces.

I'm not persuaded this is an entirely neutral statement, given that it ascribes GC views to 'an older generation of feminists' and puts 'safe spaces' in inverted commas.

But we should also have some sympathy and understanding for those who find acceptance of new elements of diversity difficult. We should work to persuade and help them understand the issues.

The issues that I don't believe men are women and don't want them in female spaces? Knock yourselves out trying to persuade many women otherwise.

None of it is neutral. It’s those older women are too entrenched try to persuade them anyway

Yeh no thanks

Completely agree.

Free speech has never been a “core Conservative value”.

Free speech is the product of liberalism … as are most freedoms.

If you need an example of this, consider which side of the political divide is removing books from libraries and imposing restrictions on the topics that can be discussed in schools.

On that Lib Dems thing they didn’t go for the ‘rights hoarding dinosaurs’ as Labour do but it’s the same sentiment

My only answer is that I wish Rosie Duffield was in charge of the government.

"If you need an example of this, consider which side of the political divide is removing books from libraries and imposing restrictions on the topics that can be discussed in schools".

Maybe consider which side of this political divide has an understanding of the need to safeguard children from those who seek to influence them with age inappropriate information & beliefs and is determined that safeguarding all children will remain a priority for our society?

removing books from libraries

I'm curious about the argument that all books are de facto Good Things.

If books have the impact that people say they do, then surely books are just as capable of being harmful as being beneficial?

Should all people, of all ages, have unfettered access to all books, at all time?

Historically it might have been more a liberal value, but today the liberal side are rubbish at defending it. The Tory Party probably can't be trusted either.

As for schools, it's not a big deal to have age appropriate restrictions on some content. That's not the same as censoring adult political debate.

It's also fine to intervene if you see one-sided propaganda in schools. It's not "free speech" to target children with biased propaganda in a school setting.

So e.g. banning extremist gender ideology from schools doesn't mean you are "against free speech".

Restricting books according to age is being presented as 'censorship' by some.

So e.g. banning extremist gender ideology from schools doesn't mean you are "against free speech".

I'm happy for it to be discussed if presented as a disputed political theory and movement, along with others.

Yes, but we accept harm as part of free speech.

Surely some political ideology is going to be harmful, just because e.g. it's a bad way to run your economy even when some people sincerely believe in it.

Some religious ideology is going to be harmful.

The amount of violence in our entertainment may be harmful.

Pornography can be harmful to both the performers and the viewers.

https://twitter.com/xxclusionary/status/1660035667387088898

Seems relevant. Very graphic book (graphic pics, NSFW) that was in school libraries across the US.

Yes, but we accept harm as part of free speech.

I'm completely fine with that, but it's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the narrative I see sometimes that All Books Are Good. Unequivocal. And that any restrictions or cautions about books, for any reason, are Bad.

I agree that you could look at the dispute with older children, if different perspectives were allowed.

But personally I think that teachers can't be trusted with the issue, that some of them will try to push their own progressive politics, and it needs to be strictly regulated.

But personally I think that teachers can't be trusted with the issue, that some of them will try to push their own progressive politics, and it needs to be strictly regulated.

I agree with that. It's all about the framing, and impartiality.