Dear Sirs: please fire all the women
So. Lucy Bannerman in the Times (the one in London):
A transgender lecturer orchestrated a smear campaign against academics across the UK in which universities were described as dangerous and accused of “hate crime” if they refused to accept activists’ views that biological males can be women, it can be revealed.
Natacha Kennedy, a researcher at Goldsmiths University of London who is also understood to work there under the name Mark Hellen, faces accusations of a “ludicrous” assault on academic freedom after she invited thousands of members of a closed Facebook group to draw up and circulate a list shaming academics who disagreed with campaigners’ theories on gender.
In other words this is a trans woman. Isn’t it interesting that we don’t see this kind of thing nearly so much from trans men? Like, almost not at all? Isn’t it interesting that whatever else trans women bring with them after transition, they sure as hell hang on to the misogyny? Because guess what: the “academics” in that last sentence are all women.
The online forum, seen by The Times, also revealed that members plotted to accuse non-compliant professors of hate crime to try to have them ousted from their jobs. Reading, Sussex, Bristol, Warwick and Oxford universities were among those deemed to have “unsafe” departments because they employed academics who had publicly disputed the belief that “transwomen are women” or questioned the potential impact of proposed changes to gender laws on women and children.
It’s a skillful trap, isn’t it. Trans women bully women relentlessly, which tends to nudge women into going public with their doubts about how true it is to assert that “transwomen are women,” which results in more and worse bullying, which nudges more women, and so on in a circle forever (until the crash comes).
Natacha Kennedy claimed the list is necessary as a warning to students, in case they strayed into an “unsafe” course taught by one of these witches women.
Aimee Challenor, the former Green Party candidate who used her father as her election agent even though he was facing charges of raping and torturing a ten-year-old girl, for which he was later jailed, was among those who responded to Ms Kennedy’s post of August 14 to the Trans Rights UK Facebook group, with suggestions of who to blacklist. All the named academics were women.
Emphasis added.
One of them is Kathleen Stock, who makes the philosophy department at Sussex “unsafe” by arguing against “redefining the category of woman and lesbian to include men.” You might as well call it “unsafe” to argue against redefining the category of peaches to include potatoes.
“File a hate crime report against her, and then the chairman and vice-chair,” advised one. “Drag them over the fucking coals.”
For the hideous crime of saying men are not women.
Rosa Freedman, an expert in human rights law at the University of Reading, had also upset activists by saying that biological males should not have access to a women’s refuge.
So the plotters plotted what words to use to persuade her university to fire her. “Call it hate speech!” they told each other, wiping the foam from their lips.
Professor Freedman told The Times: “We are talking about the aggressive trolling of women who are experts. I have received penis pictures telling me to ‘suck my girl cock’. This is straight-up, aggressive, anti-woman misogyny. In no way have I made the space unsafe. I find it deeply distressing that an academic would set out to smear my name and impugn my reputation, simply because I put forward a perspective, based on robust and specific evidence, with which they disagree. That is not academia. That is silencing people.
“The idea that writing about women’s rights automatically becomes a hate crime in some people’s eyes is ludicrous. All it has done has made me more determined to write about this, in a respectful way that allows other perspectives to come through, and not just the views of those who shout the loudest.”
It does brace up the ol’ determination, that’s a fact.
Professor Stock said: “What would make a philosophy department unsafe is if its academics weren’t allowed to challenge currently popular beliefs or ideologies for fear of offending. Deliberately plotting to have my department lose students, or to have me dismissed, through covert means, is surprising behaviour from a fellow academic.” Both professors praised the support that they had received from their universities.
Bannerman notes that Brown last month didn’t do quite so well.
One member of the Facebook group, Sahra Rae Taylor, stood by her contribution to the list. She said: “That way we can advise people applying that ‘if you want to study law, then don’t go to these places’. Which would allow them at least to avoid being taught (and marked, and under the influence in some way) by a transphobic douchebag.”
Ah yes, very academic, much serious thought.
Ms Kennedy, who describes herself on Facebook as a “stroppy, bolshie transgirl with attitude who hates the Tories with a passion”, refused to comment. She represented Goldsmiths during trans awareness week in February.
Then it gets weird.
It confirmed that she was an employee but would not explain which department she worked in or why she appeared to be listed twice in the staff directory: once as Mark Hellen, in the department of educational studies, and secondly as Natacha Kennedy, who is named in equality and diversity reports. Both profiles appear to be active.
That doesn’t even explain what kind of staff. Administration perhaps?
It also remained unclear why an academic paper on Ms Kennedy’s specialist subject of transgenderism in children, published by the Graduate Journal of Social Sciences in 2010, cited two co-authors: Natacha Kennedy and Mark Hellen.
Neither Ms Kennedy nor Goldsmiths would clarify whether the paper was by two individuals or the same person. A spokesman said: “Goldsmiths prides itself on its inclusive community and is committed to the values of freedom of speech within the law.”
Inclusive of what, exactly?
Updating to add: Natacha Kennedy on Facebook:
“I’m sure the people of Ireland will give the fake-tanned fart-face a welcome the cunt deserves.”
Did you see this story?:
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/transgender-prisoner-sexual-assault-women-uk/
But….but….but…what if the potato self-identifies as a peach? Are you going to fail to validate the lived experience of something, just because it looks like a potato, smells like a potato, and tastes like a potato? You PERP (potato-exclusive rad-peach) you!
This stuff is getting scary. No, correct that. It has been scary for a while, and it is getting scarier. (I have every reason to believe that the reason one of my books got rejected by a bookstore was that it talks about menstruation and women and never once mentions the “woke” fact that “there are some men who menstruate”. Ophelia, you’ve read the book, so you know I did ignore that very important fact that was central to my plot, even though it didn’t appear important to me, nor even really correct.)
Reminds me of Humpty Dumpty in “Through the Looking Glass”, although probably even more ridiculous.
As long as the potato-peach class doesn’t include nectarines, I’m fine with it. Fucking nectarines.
The segue from “employs people who I’ve decided disagree with me” to “unsafe department” is sublime, isn’t it? You couldn’t pull the same trick with, say, a staff member who supports (or doesn’t) abortion rights, for example. The instinct to be over-careful in identity-space seems to trump everything.
I know this will shock everyone but I was the recipient of several minor campaigns of complaint and smearing when I was an academic (yeah, me! Mild-mannered latsot!). They involved people who were upset that I said unkind things about religion, people who use religion to justify shitty behaviour and misogynist arseholes. The universities involved didn’t take those complaints at all seriously. The attitude was pretty much “yeah, there’s another complaint about you, what a fantastic surprise, we don’t really care but we kind of have to mention it, carry on”. It was always a minor nuisance that blew over very quickly with – as far as I know – no stain on my work or character.
Could I say the same today if someone accused me of TERFitude? I’m not sure. I don’t work in academia any more and I don’t have a sense of how institutions might react. But my guess is that they’d take that specific allegation one whole shitload more seriously.
Inklast:
I’d definitely read that and those. Send me links unless you don’t want to break pseudonymity.
As latsot says, disagreement in academia is absolutely fine – except for this one subject. Rather like religion, in fact. People cannot bear to have their strongly-held beliefs challenged, if those beliefs have absolutely no grounding in fact. The body of evidence is mounting that transdom is, in fact, a cult. And one which is increasingly belligerent, bringing it to the attention of people who, unlike unsupported individuals on social media, won’t be scared off by bullying. Indeed, the people they have previously been successful in scaring into silence are now so numerous that they are organising into groups which are too large to scare.
The bullies have hitherto relied on being the largest fish in small ponds. They have not yet noticed that it is hubris to think that they can take on the entire ocean. I hope that they’ll soon be disabused of their notions of superiority. The loose organisation of narcissists will crash (like the neo-nazi movement in the US crashed when it attempted to take its toxic corner of the internet into the wider world) – and the collaborators will vanish back into their little ponds, claiming to have been ‘resisting from within’. I can only hope that the crash happens before the cult influences legislation, causing harm to the safety of women and children for years to come.
_________________________________
P.S.
I suppose you realise that if you didn’t keep mistakenly referring to the New York Times (est. 1851, in New York, New York) as ‘the Times’ (est. 1785, in London, England), you wouldn’t have to make that clarification?
I promise not to refer to the Irish Times as ‘the Times’ either. ;)
Heehee yes, I do realize that. I’ve wrestled with it, I promise you. I ended up deciding to call the NY one mostly just “the Times” because 1. I cite it so often 2. that is local US usage 3. it seems too clunky or formal to call it the NY Times every single time I cite it.
And 4. Murdoch.
Thank you tiggerthewing–I like to think I have few or no ‘pet peeves’, but the Times thing is one of them. The other is that the Guardian is a MANCHESTER newspaper.
Really? It’s a peeve? You want me to call it The New York Times every time I mention it even though I mention it almost daily? And I’m a Yank? And Yanks do in fact often call it that, for reasons I’d think would be obvious?
And…the Guardian hasn’t been a Manchester newspaper for years. It calls itself the Guardian.
Maybe I should develop a peeve that the Times calls itself “The Times” as if it’s the only one on earth while the others humbly call themselves the “The [Relevantcity] Times.”
Well it’s like postage stamps; the UK ones don’t have the country on them. (Oh and I don’t want you to do anything, just to be clear, except what you want to do.)
It occasionally causes me pause to wonder which is being referred to. Easy enough to check. Still, NYT would work…
It would work, but I suppose it’s an aesthetic preference, or maybe just a habit preference. Three initials are fine for tv and radio networks (BBC, NPR, PBS, CNN) but we just don’t call newspapers by three initials. Usually – the WSJ is an exception for some reason. I developed an aversion to cryptic initials when I worked with someone who spattered them everywhere instead of just saying Judy or Paul as everyone else did. I prefer conversational writing to pseudo-office-speak.
But since all it takes is moving the mouse to the url to see what it is…I don’t really see why it’s a peeve. She said peevishly.
For me it’s not a peeve. Then again, that mouse is heavy and I have to move it sooooo far.
:-)
latsot:
https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Ready-Robin-Buckallew/dp/1387668226/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1536553276&sr=8-1&keywords=blood+ready+robin+buckallew
Another one you might like:
https://www.amazon.com/Transformation-Robin-Buckallew/dp/1105930033/ref=sr_1_1_twi_pap_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1536553296&sr=1-1&keywords=transformation+robin+buckallew&dpID=51j73i5H3sL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch