“Trans rights” on R4 now, Universities Challenged

[Davros]

Ongoing series covering this today. Kathleen Stock featured now

Thanks I'll have a look for that!

The non-binary journalist sounds pretty intolerant to me. Basically that anything she or her fellows feel they don't like, well, it cannot be permitted.

Alice Sullivan was a welcome contrast.

So far, so fair I think. A neat summary of the GC standpoint (Sex is binary and matters sometimes) and opposing viewpoint (TWAW and debating this is debating someone’s right to exist).
Anyone listening is free to process the robustness of both of those claims.
ET adjust spelling
Now on to snowflakes - let’s see what comes up

Also now on to Uni of Leeds - Connie Shaw’s uni.

Plus lots of we’re the poor victims here but without any actual evidence.

The NB “journalist” is making all sorts of silly claims imo

Plus lots of we’re the poor victims here but without any actual evidence
Which is why debate is so important, so that Q can be asked. Where is your evidence?

I never understand this business of announcing a "non binary" special status to the world. I certainly no not think it has the impact they believe it will, mostly it will be met with eye rolls.

But as the non-binary journalist pointed out, anything that debates someone's right to exist cannot be permitted. That at university everyone has the right not to hear anything that offends them.

I hope this will be on BBC sounds to catch up later. I can't listen now unfortunately

It will be: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m002jf27

Interesting to hear the parallel ‘debate’ re Gaza. The terrible examples that tthe Jewish student gave, of swastikas scratched in to cars, and the damage to the Jewish centre. But that’s not free speech - that’s vandalism.

Declaring a “non-binary” identity is a power play and a means to launder your privilege - it’s almost never a surprise as to who makes this type of identity claim and the woman making it in this programme seems to fit the bill perfectly.

Agree. When kids are never taught the skills of debate they resort to violence. We need to bring back debate as a priority.

Arguing for the view opposite of your own can be particularly enlightening.

The girl who was NB used very emotive language as seems to be the case generally and unfortunately for them makes their argument fall at the first hurdle. I don't deny they face intimidation, but when they say that being trans is arguing for their existence then it makes you doubt that they face as much intimidation as they claim. No one wants trans people to not exist we just don't believe as they do that they've changed sex. I'm happy for anyone to live as they please but I don't want females safety and rights to be compromised. That doesn't mean that I hate trans people but that's was her classification.
I thought the 47 day long protest for Palestine was rather excessive and can see why Jewish students would have been intimidated.
The girl who was part of that protest made the best point though - that she learned more from being a part of that than she did from her lectures.

@user9637 Im starting to wonder if debate is actually the right word. Does it imply ‘packaging up the best arguments so they have the most impact’? Is there any listening involved, other than listening out for points to be challenged?
Maybe what we’re after is discussion.

I agree, we should be aiming for discussion. A huge part of the problem is people needing to FIGHT and WIN by making people accept their point of view.

If we aim for a discussion, we can accept we’re not going to see eye to eye on everything, and we’re creating space to understand why different people can hold (completely valid!) opposing positions.

I caught this in the car earlier and did some serious eye rolling at the "NB" woman. She seemed to be suggesting it was particularly difficult to be disagreed with by lectureres because of the "power imbalance". But hasnt that always been the case? You go to university to hear from people with more qualifications and experience than you?

Sasha Baker is journalist who investigates 'the anti trans movement' amongst other stuff.
muckrack.com/sasha-baker-1/interview

Some Q&As from that link...

What was your first job as a journalist?
My current job - Writer/Researcher at Which?

Did you work for your high school newspaper? If so, what did you do there?
I did, briefly, but the teacher who ran it left.

Aside from your own, what's your favorite publication to read?
The Guardian

Well of course she does, I'd expect nothing less.

As I said, laundering your privilege and weaponising your supposed "oppression" - oppression that you have self declared and is based on precisely nothing except your own solipsism.

There are not enough eyerolls in the world for this nonsense.

The second one made me titter. I couldn't help thinking, if you're doing something like this that will come up when people Google you, and you're presumably hoping to pick up work, wouldn't you try and make it a bit less...dull?

https://transsafety.network/posts/my-parents-very-clearly-do-not-love-me-children-bayswater-speak-out/

This is an example of Sasha’s journalism.

That reads like satire. As if GC is a cult and not the other way round

For Radio 4, it was quite good! Interesting range of voices: GC academics & TRAs, plus the Office of Students and WonkHE blog.

The non-binary woman trotted out the old argument of gender criticals must be silenced; it is unacceptable to debate someone's 'right to exist'.

It is very odd how often TRAs use 'vulnerability' as a weapon in their debate. They seem to believe this is a winning argument by itself. If I am very offended, you must have said something very offensive. If I am vulnerable and very easily offended, you must take greater care and limit your words. The bar for hate speech should be much lower for all words said to me and to people like me.

So for her/them, the starting point for any discussion of gender must include TWAW as an accepted unarguable fact. As that is often a key contested element of the debate, this is like asking the Accused to agree he is guilty at the outset. Then starting a trial just for show.