Peak stupid
The University and College Union – UCU – in the UK has issued a position on trans inclusion [pdf].
It doesn’t start well.
UCU has a long history (from predecessor unions) of enabling members to self-identify whether that is being black, disabled, LGBT+ or women.
Oh really? I don’t believe that. UCU members can just “self-identify” as black or disabled even if they’re obviously…not? They can “self-identify” as lesbian or gay even if their sex lives and love lives are in fact entirely straight?
I don’t believe a word of that. And it’s the first sentence, so there you go.
UCU women’s conference passed an advisory motion in 2017.
Women’s conference reaffirms:
That our women’s structures within the union belong to all self-identifying women.
That our movement must be a safe space for all women.
That our strength is our collectively in fighting the structures that oppress women and that there is vital work to be done in building and channelling our collective strength.
The first item conflicts with the next two. If their “women’s structures” belong to men who “self-identify” as women as well as to actual women, then their movement can’t be a safe space for women and it can’t fight the structures that oppress women. If women are no longer allowed to organize and campaign as women then they no longer have any rights or strength or “empowerment.”
On page 2 –
UCU supports the right of all women (including trans women) to safe spaces and the continuation of monitoring that can help identify discrimination against women, men and those who identify as non-binary.
What is “discrimination” if it’s against women, men and those who identify as non-binary? That’s everyone, so what kind of “discrimination” is it? Sounds like a personal problem.
The UCU Women members’ conference 2018 agreed a motion reaffirming trans women are to be included in all UCU women’s organising agendas and actions.
All. Women can’t have anything that’s just for women.
UCU is committed to an intersectional approach within all its work. The concept of intersectionality has at its core an understanding that within marginalised groups there are a number of different identities, such as white women, Black women, disabled women, cis women, trans women.
Did a child write this?
One of the debates around gender identity is that there is a perceived conflict between trans rights and women’s rights. This is not new, for many years some feminist groups have been opposed to trans women being part of the organising agenda and activities. This has often been situated in a challenge that trans women are or at least have been men and therefore part of the oppressive machine against women. Trans women state that this position is core to the discrimination they face and prevents them being able to have the rights they need to live full lives. Saying or implying that trans women are really men denies trans women their right to be women.
But there is no such thing as a “right to be women.” That’s a made-up right, a pretend right, a fictional right. Men don’t have a “right to be women.” There is no such right, and men don’t have it, and it’s ludicrous to pretend that oppression or inequality works this way. Does Donald Trump have a “right” to be a war veteran? Does Sean Hannity have a “right” to be Randy Rainbow? Does Ivanka Trump have a “right” to be Rosa Parks?
Please.
Trans women state. Not trans women present evidence. Not trans women show proof. Just trans women state. Just like they state they are women. Nothing more needed. They can self-identify as oppressed, they can self identify as a black disabled lesbian immigrant woman, and tick off all the boxes. That doesn’t make it true.
And as O.B. suggested, we know that isn’t true, anyway. They will be allowed to self-identify as women. Rachel Dolezal would not get sympathy. Self-identifying as disabled does not entitle you to a disabled permit to park in the closest space to the door. All the verbiage is just window-dressing, intending to cover trans with the mantle of all the other groups who have fought and (often) died to win their fair share of rights, groups that have been oppressed for millennia in most cases, and are still oppressed at least in some areas (possibly most).
Trans ideology is really just cultural appropriation dressed up in misogynistic clothes. They claim the right to kick the door to the clubhouse down and come in whether they are wanted or not, knowing that once they are in there, a substantial portion of the “cis” women will leave, and the place will once again belong to men.
When trans people talk about oppression and discrimination, I’ve never been quite sure where they think the main problem is supposed to lie. On the one hand, there’s trans people being murdered, beaten, losing jobs, refused housing or service — the common, familiar types of persecution suffered by marginalized groups the world over. But then there are insults which are not only specifically applied to transgender individuals, but are pointedly dependent on the assertion that trans people technically belong to the category they identify with: being misgendered, feeling invalidated, failing to be included in every aspect and situation associated with the opposite sex..
It seems to me that the two types of oppression could be separated. If trans women identify as men who identify as women — and trans men identify as women who identify as men — they would still be liable to the first type of discrimination. Bigots would be as eager to persecute them as they are to persecute anyone who fails to conform to traditional sex roles. The second type of discrimination, however, has become moot. The trans people themselves either wouldn’t care, or would consider it trivial.
So I’m not sure how to interpret the above quote. Is the UCU failing to note that the two forms of abuse aren’t necessarily connected? Or are they saying that being told or reminded that they’re not really members of the other sex is just as bad as being killed, beaten, or denied basic rights?
Judging from most trans rhetoric, I would say this is the exact position they are taking. It’s the only one the trans lobby is willing to accept.
Good question. The two are pretty much always treated as one, as far as I’ve seen. But then…the whole thing is based on fantasy and absurd claims, so I suppose the reality is they can’t afford to be too precise or analytical in their claims, lest the threadbare truth appear.
As a former member of UCU, this does not surprise me. They are one of the most mendacious and self-interested organizations I have ever had the misfortune to deal with.
Years ago, when I was a postdoc at UCL, they delightedly informed us that they had negotiated a reduction in hours from 38 to 35 per week, in exchange for losing 3 days of leave. At the time it was trendy to talk about reducing working hours to better promote work-life balance and family life, so UCU had to be on the bandwagon.
We pointed out to them that many staff, including postdocs, regularly worked over 38 hours per week. UCU’s response was that we should not be. We tried to explain to them that this was the norm, UK and EU laws be damned, and we’d damage our careers if we insisted on only working the proscribed working week. We were met with irritation and dismissal. So we lost 3 days of leave in return for nothing.
They don’t listen to the membership. They never have. I quit the union after that incident. I couldn’t see the point of being in a union that was uninterested in protecting its members. They only want to be seen to be “in-touch”. Except for the bit about listening to members, natch.
Wow, that’s a hideous story. All the more so since a union of academics SURELY ought to be aware of the kind of time academics have to put in. It’s not a clock-punching job, to put it mildly.