Materials will positively represent
Sussex University yesterday issued a new policy which has some rather tricky elements.
The University of Sussex has today (Tuesday 20 November) published a Trans Equality Policy Statement.
The equality policy statement reaffirms that the University will at no time discriminate against people on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression.
Well…what does that mean, exactly? Universities (and other institutions) shouldn’t discriminate against people on any grounds, should they. It’s right there in the words: discriminate against. Discrimination among is a different thing, and can be justified or not, depending on the particulars. Discrimination among can include extra help or reduced obligations; discrimination against clearly wouldn’t. So, great, University: don’t discriminate against people on any grounds.
The statement articulates the University’s position on inclusion for trans students and staff that is contained in its policies. It commits the University to treating all employees and students with respect, and seeks to provide a positive working and learning environment for everybody free from discrimination, harassment or victimisation.
Great. So let’s read the statement. It gives a list of promises.
= Requests to change name and gender on records will be handled promptly and staff and students will be made aware of any implications of the changes.
What if some smarty-boots student decides to make such a request every other day? Serious question. I can imagine being such a student and doing it to find out how they would deal with it.
Also the “students will be made aware” part is slightly creepy. Meaning what? All students will be instructed on the gender swap of one particular student whom they don’t necessarily even know? Why?
= The curriculum shall not rely on or reinforce stereotypical assumptions about trans people, and any materials within relevant courses and modules will positively represent trans people and trans lives.
What? So the university curriculum can’t include anything unpleasant about trans lives? And it can’t analyse or question the concept and the sub-concepts that shape it? It’s all yes yes happy happy, or nothing? Those are the choices?
= Transphobic propaganda, in the form of written materials, graffiti, music or speeches, will not be tolerated. We undertake to remove any such propaganda whenever it appears on the premises.
Oh. That’s interesting. Who decides what is “propaganda” as opposed to academic research or analysis? Or are they not even bothering with that and just calling everything “transphobic propaganda”? Seeing as how the more fanatical of the activists consider it transphobic to say that trans women are not literally women in every possible sense, that particular item looks very thought-control-like.
= We recognise that trans staff and students come from diverse backgrounds, and will strive to ensure they do not face discrimination on the grounds of their gender identity or gender expression or in relation to other aspects of their identity, for example, their race, age, religion or belief, disability or sexual orientation. In addition, assumptions will not be made about the gender identity or gender expression of partners of trans staff or students.
Notice anything left out of those “aspects of their identity”? Sex. It’s ok to discriminate against people on the grounds of their sex, just not of their gender identity. If you’re one of those obstinate people who decline to agree that they have a “gender identity,” you’re out of luck – discrimination against you is ok.
Hooray for diversity, except for women. Women are terrible.
The no negative depictions commitment is a strange one, and it sounds suspiciously like a refusal to criticise the behaviour of those students. What if a trans person is genuinely an arsehole? I guess they get to shout and ride roughshod over the voices of those that disagree without losing their saintly aura.
This is interesting because in this week alone there have been three major articles written in NZ media that relate to trans issues (not including the grandmother selling her daughter for sex with the assistance of a rapist turned trans woman but still girl abuser).
The first of these was that the organisers of the Auckland Gay Pride parade banned gay and lesbian Police and Corrections staff from marching in the parade because members of the LGBTQIA community said that their presence made them feel unsafe. Meetings held by the gay community and statements by the majority of those brave enough to comment were strongly supportive of allowing police to march in uniform, acknowledging that times had changed and that police had made huge strides in terms of diversity and sensitivity. It turned out the original pressure to exclude police came from a small group of trans activists.
Secondly, there was a lengthy article written by an Intersex person, who was AMAB, but quite clearly developed a more female than male body at puberty. The article was a thought provoking and interesting discussion of the struggles that she experienced and how the broad expression of Intersex people can be a very real struggle. Then right at the end of the article she stretched that analogy to Trans people and gender identity and said they should have the right to legally change legal documents without question and have full access to traditional female spaces, regardless of surgery, hormone therapy, outward expression or background. She also threw feminists and anyone who questioned this dogma under the bus in no uncertain terms. The irony is that she expressed gratitude for the rights and freedoms she enjoys as a women in a modern western democracy, without once acknowledging that she has those precisely because of the campaigning and work of those she just described as bigots.
The third article was written by a well known investigative reporter. Generally I find him a bit tiresome and prone to express his gut feel as fact (he reports a lot on major crime stories). this article was by comparison pretty low key and balanced. He was making the point that legislation currently before our parliament would allow a person to have their gender changed on birth certificates and all other Government issued documents and databases changed, simply by completing a statutory declaration. He outlined the consequences of this in both administrative and practical terms and highlighted the lack of discussion that has been had about this. One point he made is that Women’s refuges would have no legal right to refuse access from a trans women who has formally changed gender by this means, even if that person looked acted and sounded just like a man. Remember that these refuges are emergency shelter for women fleeing abuse from men. Presumably the refuge would only be able to refuse access if they could demonstrate some clear intent to abuse the access, but the point is the eprsons prescence alone would disrupt the operation of the refuge.
But what about the ‘stereotypical assumptions about trans people’ that belligerent, Woman Erasing Trans Crazies demand that everyone parrot?
Silly, that isn’t stereotypical assumptions. That is Truth®. Everyone knows that, unless they are a TERF!
/s