Uni of Edinburgh - another attempt to screen 'Adult Human Female' today

[ArthurbellaScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-67476387

'A group of academics at the University of Edinburgh hope a third bid to show a controversial documentary on women's rights and trans issues will go ahead on Wednesday.
The film Adult Human Female is due to be shown at a venue in George Square.
Two previous attempts to show it have been cancelled after pro-trans activists protested at the events.'

Good luck to them. And if someone could maybe help the trans activists with their spelling, that would be good. Are these really University students?

That is unbelievably bad from a member of staff. Factually incorrect and so badly written with no rigorous research it’s laughable.

They’ve very bravely decided to remain anonymous there.

Well I wasn't personally convinced by:

"Indeed “Adult Human Female” altogether ignores the very real possibility that women’s sports exist as a separate category in part to prevent women from competing against men in order to protect the fragile male ego from the risk of female victory."

There’s an evidence-denying argument if ever I saw one.

If that were the case, we’d be seeing evidence that women’s races were faster than men’s and so on. Curiously we see exactly the opposite.

I think the technical term is "Just saying any old bollocks".

Indeed “Adult Human Female” altogether ignores the very real possibility that women’s sports exist as a separate category in part to prevent women from competing against men in order to protect the fragile male ego from the risk of female victory."

It links to a truly idiotic Twitter thread which ISTR was almost universally panned at the time.

I am in decent nick for my age but would get smashed at any sport I can think of by a good athlete of either sex. Anyone involved in any sport knows that better athletes tend to win. Fragile ego doesn't help, there's no medal for "bbbut I wanted to wiiiin"

It is a cobblers argument.

I know 'I can't even' is an overused phrase, but really...I can't.

<brain finally explodes>

Creating some weird conspiracy theory about how women’s sport is all a big ruse of pretending that women aren’t stronger, faster, etc than men just in case men’s egos are bruised instead of accepting that sex categories in sport are to keep women safe/give them a chance to compete is a pretty good example of everything that is wrong at the heart of TRA logic.

Like all stupid conspiracy theories, you just wonder how the entire world and all the women within it have managed to collude so that everyone runs slower so that the women’s 100m world record (and race times in general) lag behind the men’s. All in secret and with no evidence trail of course.

Thats clearly more likely than men just having biological advantages that translate into sport.

https://studentnewspaper.org/full-draft-text-of-student-council-motion-calling-for-peter-mathiesons-resignation/

See background point 4. It looks like a small group of students are not very happy and trying new ways to block future occurrences.

Thank you for that @HidingBehindABigRock I needed a laugh! I particularly enjoyed the section about taking away the principals house and turning it into student flats

Creating some weird conspiracy theory about how women’s sport is all a big ruse of pretending that women aren’t stronger, faster, etc than men just in case men’s egos are bruised instead of accepting that sex categories in sport are to keep women safe/give them a chance to compete is a pretty good example of everything that is wrong at the heart of TRA logic.

It is exactly that - but also you wonder at the psychology behind it. Espousing a theory like this, which is obviously absurd, is tantamount to walking around holding a big sign reading "I AM A MORON".

There are a lot of people supporting this ideology who are willing to spout the most ridiculous nonsense. They must know it's nonsense, and yet they apparently feel no sense of shame about it.

No wonder the author wished to remain anonymous. Embarrassed for them.

There are a lot of people supporting this ideology who are willing to spout the most ridiculous nonsense. They must know it's nonsense, and yet they apparently feel no sense of shame about it.

I don't know about that. I rather suspect that the warm-faced, buzzy-eared fizz of Righteousness has an amazing ability to obscure perception of material reality.

Falling down a rabbit hole of links...

The reason KS spent so much of Material Girls talking about the definition of women is that the activists have battled for decades for men to be included as women, and because unless you accept that men can be women without question you are instantly eliminated from consideration (because even knowing that someone has a penis is apparently abusive to the penis owner). Not because 'she hasn't done the reading'.

Insulting to say as they all do that sticking to a definition of women as a sex class with specific physical characteristics is somehow clinging to victimhood, when their entire definition of women is 'anyone at increased risk of assault, particularly sexual assault, by men'. In some cases such as Andrea Chu this is clearly a sexual fetish, but I accept it's not in fact a fetish in most people. But I refuse to be defined purely as a group for victimisation.

their entire definition of women is 'anyone at increased risk of assault, particularly sexual assault, by men'.

First time I've heard that one. How fucked up.

Is it?? It's always coming up - because transwomen are at increased risk of assault (which they are, I'm not denying that - as genuinely gender non-conforming men, usually visibly so, homophobic violence is a risk - tbh I don't like it when GC voices deny this) there are then claims that this means the interests of transwomen and women are identical.

This after all was the basis of what used to be a feminist solidarity between transwomen and women. And I think most TWAW feminists would condemn me for trying to separate out the different reasons why someone might get a smack in the mouth or sexual assault. It's the same violence. But it does matter to me if somehow that violent threat eliminates any possibility of difference between the people involved. Ironically, it's non-intersectional thinking.

Permanent, I'm not sure what you're saying here.

a. You can think that people have shared characteristics in one respect, e.g. increased risk of assault, without thinking those people are actually the same.

b. Very fucked up to change the definition of a sex group to be their vulnerability and risk of assault. Are homosexuals now women? Care leavers? Who else?

c. What is this "feminist solidarity between transwomen and women"? I've never seen anything from transwomen that I would consider feminist.

a and b - I'm saying exactly what you are - TRAs often say that because transwomen and women are both at increased risk of male violence that they are therefore the same, or more cautiously that their interests are the same. Which is wrong, both just because it's so insulting to define a woman based on male actions, and because male violence also as you say affects plenty of vulnerable men, not just transwomen.

c - I'm thinking here about the number of feminist women who talk about trans friends or political associates of the past and their joint understanding of patriarchy - which is now being distorted as in the paragraph above.

Hope I'm being a bit clearer

I think the problem is I'm actually responding to some of the articles that the Uni of Edinburgh author cites as definitive proof that it's no good talking to the terven, rather than to the original article. Sorry.

https://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/viewpoint/23944115.adult-human-female-inside-blockade/

A good article.

Thanks for sharing the article, although the last lines make me want to scream.

If this political lobby won't even permit people to watch a film that is not 100% compliant with their views, how does the writer seriously think that lobby will sit and discuss what rights they might be willing to permit women to have?

And yes, rollback on the males in women's spaces. Excluding women from women's spaces is not on. Third spaces great. Absolutely. But yes, men should lose their entitlement to exclude women from society and resources and spaces by requiring that all women's spaces provide entry to them. I am not going to weep for the men who are distressed at losing this access either, as my concern is for the women who lost their access when those men walked in: those men have no interest or tears for them. The writer's concern is only for those men.

The writer seems to be another hopeful type that some nice 'middle ground' can be found where it's all sunshine and roses, and no man has to encounter the word 'no'.

Very good write-up here:

http://forthvalleyfeminists.com/academic-freedom-material-reality-and-the-tolerance-of-legally-held-beliefs-eafaf-successfully-hold-film-screening/

to quote the rallying words of Dr Jane Clare Jones said in the film:
‘…they misunderstood that women are actually generally quite accommodating until you really really take the piss and we put a line down, and then –
We will not fucking move.’

Amen.

That is a good write up, and sobering. Kudos to EU for finally getting to show the film.

Do we know if Mathieson has watched the film yet?

I wish he'd stop hiding. He's paid to lead. This shambles is a disgrace, the Staff Pride Network are behaving like toddlers instead of academics. It's embarrassing.

There's no fucking way I'd send the little vivariums to Edinburgh to study. Zero.